Final Response Paper

Professor Wexler

English 313 Popular Culture

13 December 2010

Identity Crisis and the eventual merging of the dual identity

What does our identity represent? Barker defines identity as, “”A temporary stabilization of meaning or description of ourselves with which we emotionally identify” (Barker 481). This definition would mean that identity is how we think we represent ourselves to the world. In films like The Truman Show, My Big Fat Greek Wedding and American Psycho, each main character of the film represents themselves differently to the world around them, through a political, psychological or comodification. Furthermore, although these characters experience a crisis of their identity at one point, eventually they are able to merge their dual identities.

In Chris Barker’s, Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice," self-identity is defined as “the verbal conceptions we hold about ourselves and our emotional identification with those self-descriptions” (Barker 215). Thus, Anthony Giddens states that self-identity consist the ability to sustain a narrative about the self (Barker 217). The movie, Truman Show, is about a man named Truman Burbank, played by Jim Carrey, who is the star of a hit show called The Truman Show, however, he doesn’t know he is actually on the show. The shows director, Christof, adopted Truman from birth and unknowingly made him the star of this “reality” television shows. His reason for the show is explained by him: “We've become bored with watching actors give us phony emotions. We are tired of pyrotechnics and special effects. While the world he inhabits is, in some respects, counterfeit, there's nothing fake about Truman himself. No scripts, no cue cards. It isn't always Shakespeare, but it's genuine. It's a life.” (The Truman Show).  Recording twenty-four/seven of Truman’s life, his identity is perceived by others entirely differently than how he sees himself. Truman essentially lives in a fake world, while believing it is real. In one scene of the film, Christof states, “We accept the reality of the world with which we are presented,” placing Truman’s reality, although not true, is real for Truman and thus, in his world and the real world, he is able to exist with two identities (The Truman Show).  In reference to Giddens interpretation of identity, Truman is unable to sustain a narrative about himself as is shown later on in the film.

Within the Marxist subject,  it is argued that what is to be a person cannot be universal (Barker 221). Instead, our identities are a social formation of a definite time and place with specific characteristics. In response, The Truman Show’s basic theme; that all love Truman because they relate to him in some way,  would thus be considered condemned by Marxist notions, and instead, a social representation would be deemed correct. 

Eventually, Truman has an identity crisis after finding out his “father” in actuality is “still alive.” As Truman continues on with his life, he notices small details that suggest something was odd about his life. Then at the climax of the movie,  after his father had supposedly drowned in the ocean, he meets his father. This event could be considered very traumatizing to himself and his identity.  This dramatic event caused him to doubt everything he considered to be true in his life. Thus, he had an identity crisis, that led him to finally discover the truth about his “life.”  When he finally leaves his fake world, he is to realize the difference between reality and fantasy. His two identities formed from broadcasting and from himself are melded into one as he can finally “stabilize” a meaning for himself that he can relate through to real emotions like love.

Romantic movies also have characters where their identities are conflicted. In "Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture," Susan Bordo argues that,

"we are surrounded by homogenizing and normalizing images- images whose content is far from arbitrary, but instead suffused with the dominance of gendered, racial, class and other cultural iconography" (1101).

 In My Big Fat Greek Wedding, the main character of the film, Toula Portokalos essentially goes through an identity crisis throughout the film. Form a young age, she watched the world through two sides; the American and the Greek. One scene of the movie that exemplifies Bordo’s argument that these “homogenizing and normalizing images,” essentially create our identity, occurs early on in the film. In this scene, she is shown as a little girl at school during lunchtime, as she sits down to eat her Moussaka, a group of blonde girls “eating their Wonder Bread sandwiches,” make fun of her for not eating the “normative” type of food that children expect their friends to eat in school (My Big Fat Greek Wedding). Through this ridicule, Toula is conflicted between having her cultural identity, and the American commoditized identify.

Through advertisements, our identities have been turned into a commodity. Bordo adds that, "the very advertisements whose copy speaks of choice and self-determination visually legislate the effacement of individual and cultural difference and circumscribe our choices" (1101). Bordo correlates advertisements to effacement, because essentially, they are the same thing. Ads sell an image that they argue, every "body" needs. Makeup, hair color, clothes, and contacts all "cure," our bodily disorder, thus making our sickly bodies healthy.
                Through this effacement, these advertisers are essentially constructing our identity and culture into a distinctive product that can only be achieved through consumption. Our identity is bought by products that will eventually at some point allow us to reach this idealized identity. Humans are no longer individuals, but within a normalized society that accepts a standardized perception of beauty. As it is portrayed through Toula, identity can be bought just through the use of make-up and hair products. After Toula commoditized herself into the American identity that she always wished for, she has essentially ended her “identity crisis,” and has combined her two identities into one.

This duality of his identity is something that Pieterse asserts as hybrid identities. Through culture, the concept of hybridity refers to cultural hybridization which distinguishes as a “cultural response, which range from assimilation, through forms of separation, to hybrids that destabilize and blur cultural boundaries. The involves the opening up of ‘imagined communities’ (Barker 257). Thus, a person from two cultures can also have the duality of identities. This hybridity is demonstrated within the film, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, through the division of her identity of her nationality.

Furthermore, Stuart Hall states that cultural identity is not fixed, but a natural sate of being, or a ‘process of becoming,’ (Barker 229). Therefore, each individual’s identity is constantly being discovered.  Further, identity is a ‘production,’ which is shifting and fragmenting identities (Barker 229). Thus, each person is a different identity in different environments where each place creates a specific identity is made for that situation.

This ‘fragmented,’ identity is especially evident in the thriller movies, American Psycho.  The main characters dilemma of his identity is very clearly recognized through his narration. Patrick Bateman played by Christian Bale, declares while peeling off a face mask,
"There is an idea of Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there."

This statement of being "simply not there," essentially removes his identity. He is not able to answer the questions presented by Giddens, or at least, truthfully, “What to do? How to act? Who to be?” (Barker 217). How he acts and who he is does not actually represent him. Humans are essentially mimetic, which means that most of us are not able to answer the question, of “Who to be?” Through mimesis, we are not able to adopt our own identity, but of someone else’s, essentially creating a cyclical process that results in the absence of originality.

Bateman’s statement that he is an illusion relates to Freud’s psychoanalytic theory on the self. Because the self is fractured into the ego, superego, and unconscious, the self is then a unified narrative of the self that is acquired over time through the symbolic order of language and culture and (Barker 222). Thus, he concludes that through “the process of identification with others and with social discourse we create an identity that embodies an illusion of wholeness” (Barker 222). This is essentially the identity of Bateman and the persona he creates with the people he socializes with. Through the use of language and culture, Bateman has create an identity that may seem complete and whole externally, he is in actuality a hollow shell that is “simply not there” (American Psycho).

Giddens goes on to say that “identity is not a collection of traits that we posses. Identity is not something we have, nor an entity or a thing to which we can point. Rather, identity is a mode of thinking about ourselves” (Barker 217). Thus, he is an illusion, unable to think for himself. Bateman is essentially all exterior; a composite of many things, where none of them are truly him.

This quote, stated in Barker, wholly defines the climax of Bateman’s identity crisis, "Identity is best understood not as a fixed entity but as an emotionally charged discursive description of ourselves that is subject to change" (Barker 216). After Bateman’s unceasing murderous rampage, he finally reaches the moment of crisis in realizing what he was actually doing. During Bateman’s phone call to his friend, he displays his true identity versus the false one he was portraying throughout the film. Here, he allows himself to merge his two identities as he finally realizes his actions and returns back to his old routine.

It is stated in Barker that in the postmodern sense, "the decentred or postmodern self involves the subject in shifting, fragmented and multiple identities.  Persons are composed not of one but of several, sometimes contradictory, identities" (220).  Thus, depending on where one is  placed, a person usually has two maybe more, identities in this world. If a person is a school, church, shopping or the movies, they are one identity completely different than at home. Who a person is with also adds to the complexity of identities a person can create to assimilate with the environment. The characters of these films all have this duality of identity, that eventually, they realize their “crisis” of identity, and revert back to the normality of life.

Works Cited

American Psycho. Dir. Mary Harron. Perf. Christian Bale. Universal Studios, 2000.

DVD.

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. London: Sage

Publications,  2008.Print.

Bordo, Susan. "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture."

 My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Dir. Joel Zwick. By Nia Vardalos. IFC Films, 2002

The Truman Show. Perf. Jim Carrey. Paramount Pictures, 1998.

Social Media, Myspace and Facebook

What's the difference between Myspace and Facebook? Which one is safer?

Some people see Myspace as the trashier, less sophisticated social network, while Facebook is for intellectuals. When I first made my Facebook page in 2007, this was very true. While in high school, I had a Myspace profile as well as a Facebook page. When I first joined Facebook, most of my friends were not on it, but almost all of my friends had a Myspace profile. When I entered college, this reversed dramatically, Facebook became the "it" page, and everyone deleted their Myspace accounts. What happened? Did everyone just mature suddenly?

What I noticed when it came to the difference between Myspace and Facebook were significant details. For example, Myspace allowed users to create any name they like, while Facebook doesn't allow users to create fake names. So what I want to know is, which is safer, Myspace or Facebook? It may appear that Facebook is safer, but in my opinion, Myspace provided more security and privacy. This is because Myspace allows anyone to be anyone. Though this may be unpopular now, I think that having the option to not give out your name to the world is a much safer route than what Facebook provides.  

Fiske,Television Culture and Disney

I found John Fiske's, Television Culture very interesting to read. His in depth analysis on the culture of television resonated with me because when I watch television, I like to analyze what I am seeing. Yes, Glee is a show about students signing in Glee club, but in actuality, it is a show about our society and culture. Fiske says that "A code is a rule-governed system of signs, whose rules and conventions are shared amongst members of a culture, and which is used to generate and circulate meanings in for that culture (1088)."

Additionally, Fiske's theory on television can also be applied to film. He mentions that "the middle-class and the white American is correlated with the more attractive, the more moral and the heroic. This displacement of morality onto class is a common feature of our popular culture...Walt Disney cartoons consistently express villany through characteristics..." (1093).

Several Disney movies like Aladdin during the early 90s are considered very controversial due to the plot and background of the stories. In Aladdin, the main characters Aladdin and Jasmine on the surface seem like a typical animated character. Yet, though Aladdin is supposed to be from somewhere in the Middle East, his skin is lighter than the villain Jafar, and the nonessential characters have darker features. Aladdin doesn't have an accent, but an American one, just like Jasmine's father, who could be considered more British than Middle Eastern. Lastly, Jasmine's characteristics are similarly lighter with an American accent. What is Disney saying here? That the dark guy is usually the villain, and the American is the hero? Aren't most Americans non-Caucasian? It is interesting to find how audiences respond to this, and whether they notice these stereotypical features, or set it aside as just a movie.



Fiske, John. "Television Culture." 1087-97. Print.

Seinfeld Group Presentation

For my group presentation on the television show Seinfeld, we focused on four main questions. 1. How did Seinfeld portray "Radical Romance?" 2.What aspects of American culture is Seinfeld presenting? 3.Is Seinfeld "Modern or Post-Modern?" and lastly, Are they the "norm" or the "other?" Of these four questions I chose to discuss for our presentation on the Radical Romantic aspect of the television show.

For my part of the episode of "The Beard," I chose to focus on the homosexuality aspect of these scenes that we presented. I chose to relate Michel Foucault's argument about homosexuals in "The History of Sexuality" of the "specification of individuals," with the scenes that we presented of Jerry and Elaine discussing on the idea of conversion. Through this comparison I argued that Foucault is presenting the idea that homosexuality is biological and in comparison to what happens in the episode, Seinfeld supports to this argument by Elaine's inability to convert. I was happy to have the class respond to my question whether homosexuality is biological or is it possible to convert or condition a person to become heterosexual.

I was very lucky to be in a group that was so dedicated and focused to make this into a perfect presentation that represented what we have learned so far in this class. Everyone had a role and I am very happy to say that we all completed our duties as a group member. I really enjoyed working with my group members and on this fun and unique presentation about Seinfeld.

Foucault, Michel. "The History of Sexuality." Print. 683-91.

Television and Cultural Identity

Last week we read chapter 10, “Television, Texts and Audiences” from the Barker book. In one part of the chapter, it exemplifies the importance of television through the construction of culture identity;

"Television is a resource for the construction of cultural identity just as audiences deploy their cultural identities and cultural competencies to decode programmes in their own specific ways. As television has become globalized, so the place of television in the constitution of ethnic and national identities has taken on a particular significance" (Barker 331).

Essentially, television is a portal for viewers to judge their own culture and the cultures that they are not familiar with. Yet, while American audiences may watch television shows through a critical approach, knowing that it is a constructed reality, other ethnic communities may see it through a referential view, understanding that the show is exhibiting reality (Barker 331). What this means is that other cultures may think that American shows are presenting a reality based view of how we live, think and act. Shows like "Seinfeld," which shows an exaggerated perspective of New Yorkers may translate to other cultures as how all Americans treat each other. I remember watching a show where an New Zealand  teenager thought that all American teens lived like the teens on the show, "The O.C." This kind of one dimensional observation of the diverse American culture is counter-productive to what this may be regarded as globalization. How can cultures be globalized when singular demonstrations like television represent ours and other cultures incorrectly?

This formation of a false display of our cultures is also shown through films. Much more widely viewed, American movies are usually seen by other cultures as the definitive portrayal of the American lifestyle. Still, movies like, Team America, play on a exaggerated global view of Americans and the post 9/11 aim to stop terrorists, understand how movies formulate ideas for other countries around the world.
 Movies are like an advertisement of one's country, only showing the beautiful, powerful, positive side of their society, and while others may have a specific and perhaps incorrect opinion of the American culture, for a country that is very  enclosed on our own culture this can also affects the American society.
 For example, when it comes to British films, it is the best and only way for me to see how the English culture is like. For some like me, the only way to learn about their humor, tastes and perspectives is through films. Although I am aware that this portrayal of the British lifestyle may not entirely be accurate, I am still entrapped within this specific perspective. Although we are aware that television and films are "make-believe," it is still difficult to leave that mindset when our exposure is so limited to the content of other cultures.

The Effacement of our Identity

In "Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture," Susan Bordo argues that, "we are surrounded by homogenizing and normalizing images- images whose content is far from arbitrary, but instead suffused with the dominance of gendered, racial, class and other cultural iconography" (1101).

I agree with Bordo as this statement is evident throughout our society. Although our country consists of a melting pot of ethnic groups and cultures, through advertisements, our identities have been turned into a commodity. She adds 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). Bordo correlates advertisements to effacement, because essentially, they are the same thing. Ads sell an image that they argue, every "body" needs. Makeup, hair color, clothes, and contacts all "cure," our bodily disorder, thus making our sickly bodies healthy.

Through this effacement, these advertisers are essentially constructing our identity and culture into a distinctive product that can only be achieved through consumption. Our identity is to be bought and the higher the bidder goes, the closer they will reach this idealized identity. We no longer live as a singular individual, but within a normalized society that accepts a standardized perception of beauty.

A work by Barbara Kruger alludes to the argument that shopping creates ones existence

Bordo, Susan. Material Girl: The Effacements of Postmodern Culture. 

Why Love is Evil

In class last Thursday, we watched part of a documentary of a Marxist philosopher named Slavoj Žižek. In one part of the film, he relates how creation is a cosmic imbalance, where everything exists accidentally, and the only way to counter-act this mistake is through love. He believes that love is evil and perceives it as an extremely violent act.

He argues that we are flawed because of our love of idealizing love. Humans basically glorify and externalize what they see to achieve a form of love that is highly unrealistic. This type of love I perceive as a form of infatuation which can be found within our highly materialized society where people like celebrities or politicians are idolized. This delusional, infatuated love can essentially be evil because it blinds society into exalting a specific physical image and leads into a destructive, imbalanced and irrational society.

Furthermore, I believe he is also arguing that when someone states, "I love you," that person is sharing a sentiment that it is presently happening now but though it is attempted, it is not eternal.
 When viewed within a world perspective, this statement can also be equated to political relations. For example, two countries may announce that they are at the moment in alliance, but it is not always constant for there is always an awareness of impending violence. When one states, "I love you," it is fixed upon the present, bounded within time. However, there it always that impending moment that those sentiments may be reversed, and may enact the opposite that is love, which is evil. Hence our existence is always imbalanced.

Homosexuality in Foucault's, "The History of Sexuality"

In Michel Foucault's, "The History of Sexuality," it mentions that in the nineteenth-century, "homosexual became a personage, a past, a cast history, and a childhood, in addition to being a type of life, a life form, and a morphology, with a indiscreet anatomy and possibly a mysterious physiology," when referring to the new specification of individuals (Foucault 687). In essence, what he is saying is that during this time, homosexuals were basically seen as a new species or "life form," that were evolving in humankind, whose body were of a new structure of the homo-sapien that had developed through our history.

I found this argument very significant when looked at what's going on today. The argument that homosexuals either chose to be gay or were born with it is still questioned in 2010, where there are people who are still arguing whether gay's should be punished for their choices. It is radical that Foucault who wrote this theory in the 1970s would state that homosexuality begins at birth, significantly, arguing that homosexuals do not have a choice as it is biological, something that is some religious beliefs state that it is untrue, as it considered that man and woman has always been together and should always be together.

Foucault's statement that homosexuality has been here since the nineteenth-century led me to relate to the film we watched in class, Shakespeare in Love. In the film, it is shown that in theater during the 1500s, women were not allowed to act, and instead young men who had not yet hit puberty would take their place. At the end of the film, when the crowd sees a real live woman on stage playing (gasp!) the character of a woman, they are silently shocked.

It is very intriguing that in the 16th century, it was considered okay to have men kissing men, acting, dressing and talking like a woman, yet outrageous to have a woman act on stage. It makes me wonder why "cross-dressing" was an appropriate act for men during a time when homosexuality was I think, not discussed about very much, and yet today, it is shocking to see two men kissing. In sum, though I do not believe homosexuality is a new form of "species," but has been with us for centuries, and though even today it is not completely accepted, it is slowly gaining support in America and in countries around the world through laws granting them their rights in society.



Foucault, Michel. "The History of Sexuality." Print. 683-91.

Response Paper

Professor Wexler
English 313 Popular Culture
14 October 2010


Response Paper; Self-reflexivity in My Big Fat Greek Wedding

The highest grossing romantic comedy ever, My Big Fat Greek Wedding is not only a popular film; it is radical for its significant characteristic of self-reflexivity. Tamar McDonald states in her book, Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre, “ the major thematic concerns of the radical romantic comedy all derive from issues of self-reflexivity, a heightened consciousness of self” (McDonald 67). This process of self-reflexivity is notably used the throughout film by the main character, Toula Portokalos, a Greek-American woman who essentially self-reflects through the journey of finding love and her future husband, Ian Miller. Her love-less life before meeting Ian she describes in two short sentences, “Nice Greek girls who don't find a husband, work in the family restaurant. So here I am, day after day, year after year, thirty and way past my expiration date” (Greek). McDonald mentions that a radical film, within romance and satisfaction, seeks for realism in addition to classic love, declaring that “the radical romantic comedy acknowledges that its characters are in search of meaningful and satisfying relationships; and sometimes to the contrary, that they also seek romance” (McDonald 67). Toula is the contrary for she seeks to find a relationship and to experience love her throughout her whole life, meanwhile, being reminded of this by her father Gus Portokalos everyday, “you better get married soon. You're starting to look... old!” (Greek). Her “radical” need for romance is unique to female characters in romantic comedies that, in addition to a “meaningful and satisfying” relationship, McDonald proclaims women also want a “healthy relationships [to] provide sexual satisfaction” (McDonald 66).


Thus, these qualities are formed through the process of self-reflexivity, in which follows her success in finding love and forming the romance and serious relationship. Yet, in the film, even when she does find love, her father rejects it because he is not Greek; Ian Miller: “’May I please date your daughter?’ Gus Portokalos: ‘NO!’” (Greek). Toula’s father does not accept Ian because of his cultural identity, which is something that he holds very dearly, and the rest of the Greek population. Toula is very self-aware of this from a very young age.

In Hall’s anti-essentialist position, he regards cultural identity, “not as a reflection of a fixed, natural, state of being but as a process of becoming” (Barker 229). We see this when Toula struggles to incorporate the American identity that she’s desired her whole life, while fighting with her Greek identity that her culture demands. Although she wants to keep her Greek identity to satisfy her family’s wishes, she has also wanted her whole life to be like the American girls at her school when she was young, “When I was growing up, I knew I was different. The other girls were blonde and delicate, and I was a swarthy six-year-old with sideburns” (Greek). Finally, after being tired of her old identity of Toula; the daughter and waitress, she changes her identity to Toula; the career woman and girlfriend.

She achieves this by changing her appearance, changing her glasses to contacts, getting a new hairstyle and wearing more trendy and fashionable clothing. Suddenly, she becomes more attractive to men and very soon, finds Ian. This transformation can be analyzed by Winship’s argument that, “A woman is nothing more than the commodities she wears: the lipstick, the tights, the clothes and so on are “woman”’ so essentially, she has bought into this lifestyle and values (Barker 69). Thus, it can be argued if she has thrown her old Greek identity and bought herself a new identity as an American woman through this makeover? Yet, Hall argues, “Cultural identity is continually being produced within the vectors of similarity and difference,” (Barker 229). On that account, she had essentially merged herself with two identities, constantly shifting the position of her self within her Greek family and her husbands’ family.

Through the process of self-reflexivity in the beginning of her film and throughout, Toula discovers what she wants in her life, love and an identity. She finds this love through a makeover, essentially discovering a new identity. Within this film, the emphasis of the self carries across and produced into the final product of marriage and the passing of her new identity to her child, Paris; “Mom, I want to go to Brownies. Toula: “I know. I know. But I promise you this. You can marry anybody you want” (Greek).




Works Cited

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage,
             2008.
McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre.
              New York: Wallflower Press, 2007. Print.
My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Dir. Joel Zwick. By Nia Vardalos. IFC Films,
              2002.

Michel Foucault; Race and Gender

Michel Foucault proposes an anti-essentialist argument that has no "universal ahistorical subjectivities" where instead, he argues that gender is not an outcome of "biological determinism, or universal cognitive structures and cultural patterns", but historically and culturally specific (291). This argument is agreeable in my opinion in that, to think that our characteristics are predetermined at birth is senseless and illogical. This argument goes for both race and gender and whether women and men and all races are they way they are because culture has formed these social constructions. To delve into the matter more deeply, is culture important to race? Does culture determine how people think, feel decide on in life and form opinions or preconceptions of others?

During our discussion in class, a question was asked to the class."Do we identify race, or gender first?" My answer to that is, it depends on the situation. For me, I chose not to judge by looking at race or gender, but by surveying character and environment. For example, when I was in Paris, France, a city bursting with tourists visiting from all parts of our planet, what I chose to identify in that situation was in finding another Armenian or American like myself. In that hectic city, I heard many strange and unfamiliar languages and yearned to hear a language that I understood, so when I heard English or Armenian, it was like finding a piece of my home thousands of miles away.

I believe this desire to find people that you can identify to was formed from the tribe mentality. Though we do not live in tribes today, culture and language gives us that unique bond that allows us to form a unique group of people that we can identify to. In this situation, I identified race first, not because of any biological or learned response, but because of the environment of the condition that I was placed in. However, at night when walking to the hotel, my main concern is protection, and in the dark, the only identifiable characteristic is gender. Being a girl and short, I am an easy target an my main concern is to keep my eyes and ears alert. Identifying gender and race allows us to protect ourselves while also providing support in varying conditions. Culture may determine how we see the world, however, I believe it is the individual who ultimately chooses to make that decision whether to allow culture to determine our ideas.



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

The Graduate; 'Good girl, Bad girl'

Released in the 1960s, the film, The Graduate does not follow the conventional terms addressed in Tamar McDonald's book, "Romantic Comedy." In her book it states that in a Sex Comedy, "men were supposed to have pre-marital sexual experience, and women were not" (McDonald 41). This information came from a report done by Alfred Kinsey's on Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female.

Thus, women who did have pre-marital sexual experiences created "a new moral climate which no longer assumed 'nice girls' would insist on marriage before sex," forming the 'good girl, bad girl,' motif in films (McDonald 42). Eventually, it is the 'good' girl in the film, the one who does not give into the mans seductive influences, who ends up marrying him (McDonald 46). In The Graduate, it is unique in that it does not follow much of these reoccurring themes, however, it does fit into some of the sex comedy themes.

Ben Braddock, portrayed by Dustin Hoffman, is trapped in a dilemma. Soon after graduating from college, he is faced with dealing with what to do with his future, a daunting task that is universally relatable. However, this becomes a minor, insignificant problem when it comes to his love life.
Pursued by an old family friends wife, Ben is faced to with decision of either to have a love affair with an older-aged woman, or not and defy the results of Kinsey.

First, Ben rejects this notion, but eventually, he attempts to fit into the definition of what a man is supposed to do, despite how afraid and uneasy he felt. The woman in question, Mrs. Robinson, is essentially the 'bad girl,' in this film. Already married, although unhappily, she pursues a man decades younger than her by seducing him with a tempting offer.

It is already know that the 'bad' girl won't get the man, therefore, we can assume that the daughter is the 'good' girl who will eventually marry Ben, no matter to obstacles he faces. Elaine is Mrs. Robinson's daughter who unlike her 'cougar' mother, is genuine and real in Ben's eyes, never giving into his advances until the offer of marriage. In closing, though Ben does portray the assumed pre-martial sexual experiences that men should do, he does it reluctantly for a time. Additionally, although there is a 'bad' girl in the film, she does not pursue for marriage as she is already married and she may already know, he is too young to marry. Though this film does fit into some of the sex comedy themes, it is also revolutionary in showing a male character that is reluctant for pre-marital sex, and a female character that knowingly pursues it.


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

Ethnography

For my ethnography I found myself at the Americana at Brand, an outdoor shopping center popular with couples for its romantic atmosphere. I began by slowly exploring the shopping center and observing couples as they passed me by. By doing this I was able to observe their expressions and body language. I first saw a young Armenian couple silently walking towards the escalator to leave. Both of their expressions are hard and serious. The girl appears to be annoyed or slightly angry, perhaps having a fight before this. The boy has a serious, almost angry look on his face. Like a lion protecting his pride, he is surveying his surroundings looking for anyone that may be looking at his girl. Soon afterwards I saw an interracial couple of a Filipino woman and a Caucasian man walk by while holding hands. The woman has a bright smile on her face, she appears to be filled with contentment and love.  They seem relaxed together, perhaps a long term relationship of a few years.  They are enjoying the time they are sharing together on a breezy afternoon.

After observing these two couples, I then went to Barnes and Noble to sit and observe couples for a longer period of time. Soon after entering, I found an elderly couple sitting together by the window, reading silently. I chose a seat by them and sat for about an hour to survey this couple. They both wore white and were a Caucasian couple perhaps in their eighties in account of their primarily white hair. They sat by each other in a very relaxed state, unhurried with their time together.  I enjoyed their leisurely nature as they enjoyed the pleasure of reading silently. Sometimes, I would hear them speak to each other quietly, like the wife asking about the music playing in the bookstore. Her husband spoke gently and quietly, speaking to her like a guardian or a protector, calmly answering her simple questions. Passing by, I recognized a gay couple shopping for books. Not clearly obvious at first, but at close observation they appeared to be closer than friends. However, though they did not show any sort of signs of affection, they body language proved a great respect for each other and their opinions as they spoke in conversation. Though they left as quickly as they came, a sense of association and appreciation was felt. Soon after, a young couple in their mid-teens sat by us. Observing them, they appeared to be a couple very early in their relationship, with lots of giggling and excitement. For them, every moment is new, fresh and exciting. In contrast to the quiet nature of the older couple, who were so at ease with each other to just sit in silence for many minutes, the younger couple was in constant conversation as they giggled and joked with each other.

What is considered radical or normative, when it comes to love and romance? In my standpoint, I define radical as a sort of “contemporary” love that is unique to recent generations. Some examples to demonstrate this thought are gay couples, interracial couples and couples of vastly different ages. Each one is radical because they are still newly recent our society which the majority has grown up in a different generation and time.  Examining my observations, the strands of love that I encountered, including normative as well as radical, can be applied to several theories. In Chris Barker’s book, “Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice,” it says that under Hall’s essentialist position, identity is regarded as the name for a collective ‘one true self’ (Barker 227). He goes on further to say that identity is thought to be formed out of a common history, ancestry and set of symbolic resources (Barker 227). Therefore, Hall would consider a American to be associated with football, the Declaration of Independence and Democracy. However, to express an identity based on this ‘one true self,’ would contradict the couples that I observed. Clearly demonstrated through my ethnography, an American can be young, old, of a different ethnicity and sexual orientation. Consequently, their cultural identity is not fixed, but a natural sate of being, or a ‘process of becoming,’ as stated by Hall (Barker 229). Therefore, each individual’s identity is constantly being discovered, through this romance of love and marriage, the identity of each couple is continually being produced.  Further, identity is a ‘production,’ which is shifting and fragmenting identities (Barker 229). This theory thus reasons that the identity of each individual I observed was a ‘production,’ created for that certain situation; dating. Each person is a different identity in different environments, and with romance and love, a specific identity is made for that situation.

This ‘fragmented,’ identity is similar to Woody Allen’s character in the movie, Play It Again Sam. While preparing for a very important date, Allen’s character, Allan, takes lengths to create a persona that he believes will impress her. He basically changes everything about himself, even about his ex-wife and her ‘death,’ just to impress a girl into thinking he’s not as pitiful as he thinks he is. He puts on layers of popular shaving lotion and cologne on himself, and displays his home with open books and fake medals, saying that he needs them to “make an impression.

This sort of ‘act’ created to impress significant other is similar to the teenage couple that I observed. With the teen couple, the girl would tease and lead him on, leading him to make jokes that would make her laugh. Even the way she dressed was part of this formulated identity to create a persona that would make an impression on him. She wore a short skirt and tight top, both designer and high quality garments, with makeup and straightened hair, perhaps carefully planned to make a big statement of how much she likes him. This attention to her appearance is similar to the Gramscian concept that advertising stressed not only the selling of commodities, but also of ways of looking at the world. For example, the job of advertising is to create an identity not only through consumption, but also by buying into lifestyles and values (Barker 69).  Therefore, the teen girls identity is basically an advertisement of products, which were each designed to construct a certain image. She has essentially, ‘bought herself into,’ this lifestyle, by presenting herself in this identity that was pre-constructed.

          Ultimately, I believe each couple is in equal-standing relationships. This greatly varies to Simone de Beauvoir’s theory that women are regarded as the “Other,” while man is regarded as the Subject, the Absolute (Beauvoir). Published in 1949, it can be seen that this theory is less relevant through the examples of several of the couples, including the interracial couple, older couple and even the gay couple. It also shows that through these “radical” relationships, there is equality between them, as the acceptance of variation in our society shows respect and civility for each other.

Works Cited

Barker, Chris.  Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.  
Beauvoir, de Simone.  The Second Sex.  Trans.  Jonathan Cape.  Penguin, 1972.  

Jerry Maguire vs. Simone de Beauvoir

Simone de Beauvoir’s position in her work, “The Second Sex,” is that women have been defined as the “other sex,” which is nonstandard to the "normal" male sex, who is in the role of the “absolute.” In it she asks, “what is a woman?” “Tota mulier in utero,” or “woman is womb,” is the answer. In essence, woman is defined by biology. Yet, she argues, is women’s femininity found in the ovaries? Is that what makes us women or even human?

In the film, Jerry Maguire, by Cameron Crowe, we are shown two women of the opposite spectrum. Dorothy Boyd and Avery Bishop are two representations of the traditional and modern and woman. Dorothy has had an infatuation on her boss, Jerry, for a long time and faithfully, she stands by his side through thick and thin. On the other hand, there is Jerry's fiance, Avery, who, like Jerry, is in business and basically always gets what she wants.

After watching clips from the film, I am torn between these two characters. Whose side am I on? Whose side should I be on? The filmmaker makes it seem that we want to root for Dorothy who is the more traditional, romantic character, who is the one that waits for Jerry to come back to her. She is the standard damsel in distress.

 Thus, Avery represents the modern woman. She is a tough, headstrong, businesswoman who takes no for an answer. She is essentially, the opposite of what women were like at the time of Simone de Beauvoir’s article. Assertive, progressive and commanding, she did not let her “ovaries,” define her. Case in point, here is a quote said by Avery after responding to Jerry and his predicament with his unemployment;

“There is a sensitivity thing that some people have. I don't have it. I don't cry at movies, I don't gush over babies, I don't buy Christmas presents 5 months early, and I DON'T tell the guy who just ruined both our lives, "Oh, poor baby." But I do love you.”

 Yet, in this quote, she sounds harsh, emotionless and demanding. So, what is the screenwriter hinting at? Should we not support Avery? Is she supposed to be the antagonist of the film? Because she sounds and acts like an emotionless jerk, does that mean she was wrong in the way she acted? This viewpoint is similar to a point Beauvoir made in her argument saying that, “A man is in the right in being a man; it is the woman who is in the wrong,” it is in a woman’s own nature that imprisons, hinders her in her subjectivity. So essentially, no matter how Avery acted, her actions would be wrong because inherently we are all on Jerry’s side.

 Ultimately, Beauvoir would see Dorothy as the woman who is stuck in this "passive" role, whereas Avery is the woman who has removed this role and created her own. Yet, both characters are distinctively more stronger, powerful and radical than the majority of women during Beauvoir's time. 

Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. 1972.  Print.

American Psycho; Identity and Existence

Does Patrick Bateman exist?

That is a question that may be asked about the protagonist of the film, American Psycho. In the start of the film, Bateman declares, while peeling off a face mask,
"There is an idea of Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there."

By him stating that he is "simply not there," is to say that he does not exist. Yes, there is a flesh and blood, but within, he is hollow, unidentifiable, an illusion. In class, a quote was mentioned; "the one thing, one can be in sure of, is ones existence." That is to say, "I think, therefore I am." Yet Bateman had stated that he does not exist. There is no "real him," or an identity of him. For Bateman, he created an existence solely by forming an image or a facade. For him, he considers this image that he has formed to equal identity. Bateman is essentially all exterior; a composite of many things, where none of them are truely him.

                                                             

Similar to the mind of a psychopath, Patrick Bateman has no real emotions or empathy. Psychopathy is defined as a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal. Essentially, Bateman and psychopaths create a facade that may appear normal on the outside, but in actuality are completely abnormal on the inside. Yet, in the book, Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice," by Chris Parker, it states that "identity is best understood not as a fixed entity but as an emotionally charged discursive description of ourselves that is subject to change" (216). Would this mean that all psychopaths including Bateman do not have a true identity because of their lack of emotions? I'll let you answer that.

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

"The Politics of Culture"

At the beginning of the article, "The Politics of Culture," it explains that culture has had many different definitions that was associated with art, literature and classical music. Later on, a political definition was added after the development of Marxism. What these these distinctive definitions exemplify is the ability for culture in the 20th century to reinvent itself as a result of history and time.
 
For my personal interest, I'd like to focus on the older definition of culture, in relation to art and literature. These two artistic endeavors are the fundamental examples of social characteristics. Through art and literature we are able to see the behaviors and beliefs of society at a certain moment in time. They are prime examples of what our ancestors were thinking about and experiencing when they were alive. In essence, I define culture as our history. Culture and history are connected within the practice of art and literature and how both have social connections to society. As a result, culture is what creates our identity. Without culture, we would not be able to identify ourselves as we see it today. By using these "artistic endeavors," we are able to see our culture from the past and create our identity in present time.
 
From the discussion in class it was asked;

Who or what is being served by a particular construct? Who wins out by it?


I believe that in terms of above/below, the above is certainly constantly served by this particular construct. Though it may appear that the below has been able to be dominating this structure today, compared to 40 or 50 years ago, the above has always been "winning out." For example, popular artists in music today that began in the lower, below class of society appear to be dominating the music charts compared to maybe classical or country artists who are usually in the "above." However, ultimately the above is always in control in that these people decide who they want from the below to move up and fundamentally deciding the faith of the below. It is this popular "hierarchical" culture, which was first stated by French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, that has been the same for many years.
 
A humorous look at a hierarchical society.



Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan eds. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Molden: Blackwell, 1998.