It's mothers day tomorrow. Ugh. Not to get all emo in my last blog, but my mom died when I was a kid and my grandmother adopted me, so this whole motherhood phenomena is pretty foreign to me. I actually think this is why I've been so attracted to looking at motherhood in national identity. Oh dear lord- someone call Oprah and Dr. Phil.
So when I was going through some research I checked out an article called Daughtering in War by Irene Matthews, which had an interesting subsection on Motherhood and torture in Guatemala. We've talked a lot about active torture- hurting or affecting someone for a gain- but what about the possibility of being by-proxy tortured. I see this happening in two different ways. First, the active creation of what we've talking about in theory with nationalism- the attack on someone's mother. Ok, it may sound silly, but does anything piss you off more than a yo-mama joke?! Is there anything that is seen as a higher act of disrespect? For some reason one scene from Cold Mountain pops into my head (if you haven't seen it, don't. Nicole Kidman and Renee Zelwigger- who I normally like- are as obnoxious as humanly possible). A rogue band of civil war-rejects parade around town attempting to find men who went AWOL. They assume that two men are hiding in a barn, so they torture the men's mothers (is that proper grammer?) so that her screams are what bring them out- to promptly be shot. In effect, it's not the torturer's fault they gave up the desired information- it's the mother's and her screams (which she translates as her inability to protect her sons). I don't mean to sound completely revolting, but is our mother-bond that deep? Why is this not the same as our bond with our fathers? Is it only the son's who react so deeply to the torture of their mothers?
The second type of by-proxy torture, which Matthews talks about in her essay, excludes the desired male entirely. The mother is tortured as a type of penance for doing exactly what nationalism tells her to do; birth soldiers. When the male military or political (etc.) actor is absent, his mother is put in his place- as if the two were united and her pain could be felt through him. There is also a sort of assumption, which we can see all the time in movies etc, that the mother somehow always knows her sons whereabouts through some weird-cosmic connection. Her attack is also supposed to reverberate throughout the family and community systems as being the most horrific possible. Why?? Why is this pedestle created in such a way that all that comes from it is abuse? Actually, now that I say that I realize that this is a different culture than our own. Perhaps in these cultures the mother is valued and idealized more than she is in American culture, so her attack has greater weight- so do Americans have the same experience as rural Guatemalans with this? Is the proverbial yo-mama something which affects us all in exactly the same way???
Ok, that's it for my rantings. Over and Out.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Gender in Terrorism
O.K. So this is my last blog and I have two things that I have been thinking about regarding terrorism and gender. I know I'm supposed to put up things based on news and current events- but its finals and I live under a rock.
In another class that I'm taking we were talking a lot about the usage of sex and sexuality in torture. In places like Guantanamo soldiers make prisoners strip naked and sexually humiliate themselves. Especially in cultures where homosexuality or overt sexuality of any sort is shunned, soldiers use these exact tactics to affect the tortured. The intent with a lot of torture, as we've seen, is to destroy one's sense of self so that they do not hold back, they have nothing to loose as they are completely destroyed and left with nothing. This reveals a blatant hierarchy in our value of humans. In doing this, the soldiers make these men their sexual submissives, their 'bitches'- in effect they make them into 'their women,'. Following this logic the worst things you could be according to the alpha male military authority are: anti-American, then an Arab, then finally a woman. Patriotism and cultural identity are the first things to be attacked, but when you really want to get someone where it hurts- call them a woman. Is this a reflection on all society, the two main societies involved- or is there another group here- independant of the others. Is there an entire other sphere of citizenship, where the laws are rewritten and the reprocussion of every action holds greater weight than we can ever understand? Do these participants have different rights, roles and responsibilities which define them as citizens? Are there citizens of war- is there a social sphere of war?
To go along with this, I was just discussing a very rarely addressed participant in sexualized torture: the female torturer. Apparently, (I had never heard of any of this- why??? hmm..) there is an entire body of female torturers who use their femininity as an added attack on their victims. The simple fact that they are women has an effect in itsself, in that it is seen as a destruction of masculinity that the male victim is prostrate to a woman. Also, these torturers use their sexuality as a deeper method of humiliation. Thier ability to give a man an erection earns them credit, while debasing the man to the extreme (though I wonder which is worse, being sexually assaulted by a collective group of male soldiers, or by one trained female torturer? As a woman, is she not allowed into that society of war, and her attack seen as more vicious than the man-to-man combatants, kind of like the individual who rapes a woman versus the usage of mass rape in military conflict). Apparently, these women are given fake menstrual blood which they smear on thier victims- I would like to see the budget proposal for 'fake menstrual blood' show up on George Bush's desk.
So when I thought about this I was struck by a question that I've had a hard time articulating. I guess it's who wins and who loses in this situation?? I really want to talk to these women torturers because I could easily see thier justification being some perverse distortion of second wave feminism. We've discussed the role of male torturers in war as just being cogs in the wheel- but the active use of women's sexuality seperates her from this wheel, while also giving her added value. In my mind the manipulation of her sexuality is not a beacon to be held or a tribute to her patriotism and ESPECIALLY not to her feminism. I'm really curious to know how that can be justified. I'm trying to get the articles etc that related to this- I'll post em if I do.
OK- I'm going to keep my blogs seperate but I do have another topic to address, (I'm obnoxious, but this is the only thing I'm allowing myself to do other than work on my other paper now that I officially wasted 2 hours on facebook today..) To be continued.... over and out!
In another class that I'm taking we were talking a lot about the usage of sex and sexuality in torture. In places like Guantanamo soldiers make prisoners strip naked and sexually humiliate themselves. Especially in cultures where homosexuality or overt sexuality of any sort is shunned, soldiers use these exact tactics to affect the tortured. The intent with a lot of torture, as we've seen, is to destroy one's sense of self so that they do not hold back, they have nothing to loose as they are completely destroyed and left with nothing. This reveals a blatant hierarchy in our value of humans. In doing this, the soldiers make these men their sexual submissives, their 'bitches'- in effect they make them into 'their women,'. Following this logic the worst things you could be according to the alpha male military authority are: anti-American, then an Arab, then finally a woman. Patriotism and cultural identity are the first things to be attacked, but when you really want to get someone where it hurts- call them a woman. Is this a reflection on all society, the two main societies involved- or is there another group here- independant of the others. Is there an entire other sphere of citizenship, where the laws are rewritten and the reprocussion of every action holds greater weight than we can ever understand? Do these participants have different rights, roles and responsibilities which define them as citizens? Are there citizens of war- is there a social sphere of war?
To go along with this, I was just discussing a very rarely addressed participant in sexualized torture: the female torturer. Apparently, (I had never heard of any of this- why??? hmm..) there is an entire body of female torturers who use their femininity as an added attack on their victims. The simple fact that they are women has an effect in itsself, in that it is seen as a destruction of masculinity that the male victim is prostrate to a woman. Also, these torturers use their sexuality as a deeper method of humiliation. Thier ability to give a man an erection earns them credit, while debasing the man to the extreme (though I wonder which is worse, being sexually assaulted by a collective group of male soldiers, or by one trained female torturer? As a woman, is she not allowed into that society of war, and her attack seen as more vicious than the man-to-man combatants, kind of like the individual who rapes a woman versus the usage of mass rape in military conflict). Apparently, these women are given fake menstrual blood which they smear on thier victims- I would like to see the budget proposal for 'fake menstrual blood' show up on George Bush's desk.
So when I thought about this I was struck by a question that I've had a hard time articulating. I guess it's who wins and who loses in this situation?? I really want to talk to these women torturers because I could easily see thier justification being some perverse distortion of second wave feminism. We've discussed the role of male torturers in war as just being cogs in the wheel- but the active use of women's sexuality seperates her from this wheel, while also giving her added value. In my mind the manipulation of her sexuality is not a beacon to be held or a tribute to her patriotism and ESPECIALLY not to her feminism. I'm really curious to know how that can be justified. I'm trying to get the articles etc that related to this- I'll post em if I do.
OK- I'm going to keep my blogs seperate but I do have another topic to address, (I'm obnoxious, but this is the only thing I'm allowing myself to do other than work on my other paper now that I officially wasted 2 hours on facebook today..) To be continued.... over and out!
Media Coverage
With all my recent posts of media coverage, it makes me wonder if we should truly believe anything they say. They present stories in a way to get the readers/viewers attention, even if it is deceitful. They present contrasting narratives more often than not. So my question is if they are the source of our news around the world, how can we truly trust them? How do we know when they are telling the truth?
Media and Celebrities
I was just reading some of the other posts and got me thinking about the media and celebrities as well. Unfortunately today, when one becomes a celebrity, your job description also includes paparazzi snapping away pictures of you doing very normal things in life. This never used to be the case - yet now, it is expected. It's sad because everyone is literally watching their every step. If they do something embarassing or commit a crime, the way it is presented in the media is amplified tenfold. Then whoever picks up a magazine or newspaper, their face is plastered all over. It is as if they themselves are in jail being watched over!!
Legal Age
Becoming 18 for many is very bittersweet. When you are a minor, you can pretty much get away with so many things. Because we were young, we tended to rebel more and paid little attention to consequences - because our only real form of punishment came through our parents. Police didn't bother much with us because we were not adults yet. However, once you are 18 - there is that transition in which you have to be so careful with whatever you are doing because now you can really get in trouble by the authorities. I think it is just strange that you can get punished so much more readily at 18 - i feel like the age is so random, but there is definitely a shift.
My own person panopticon
I have a crappy living situation in my apartment at school. While I was lucky enough to get the huge single, the drawbacks of it include having another girl have to walk through my room to get to her room every day. Not only that but this girl happens to be the most annoying obnoxious person I've ever had the misfortune of knowing. I really can't stand this person. No one wanted this room. I didn't really have a choice. I thought, I'm pretty easy going, this won't be a huge issue. Well I was sooo wrong.
Thinking of the foucault, I feel like my room is the panopticon. Everything and anything I do in this room at any given time may or may not be on display for others to see. Usually just her, but our housemates feel some (unauthorized) freedom to come and go as they please to her room by walking through my room -- and in reverse, they of course would be completely put off and disheveled if I just burst into their room all the time but ehh. Anyhow, It's so frustrating. Not that I have anything to hide, but I don't like these people that I live with. They are extremely judgemental and not at all my friends. They are in fact people I see on busses and in class that I think oh man I can't stand those people. And woo hoo, I live in a house of them. So the fact that they are constantly moving in and out of my private space, at their will, puts me in an awkard place. When I hear the girl who lives above me, let's call her Janis (yes like from Friends, that level of annoyance), walking up thes tairs into the apartment or down the stairs about to enter my bedroom, I automatically shift whatever I am doing so that I am either pretending to be on the phone or listening to my ipod or i'll even go as far as to change whatever website I am on and pull up an old word document to make it look like i am busy writing a paper just to avoid her. She walks in the room and quietly observes everything. Even if Janice doesnt linger very long, she always glances at my computer screen or the mess on the floor in the corner. It makes me cringe and anxious.
I really don't give a damn what she thinks but it's so hard to not be self-conscious when the one place you are supposed to be out of the public eye, your own private bedroom, is a place where you are under the most scrutiny. I can always be called out on something, I can never say that I am too busy with school work to do something bc she can see if I am watching TV or napping. I can't go out for a night and not come home without inquisitive gazes making judgements or knowing everything i do. Whereas they all live in their own private spaces, and they can do the exact same things I do, and no one will ever know.
I truly feel like a prisoner in my own house. It actually has had physical effects on me to the point where I became ill enough to be medicated and had to start seeing a pyschiatrist to treat my anxiety. I can totally understand the effectiveness of the panopticon having experienced my own version first hand.
Thinking of the foucault, I feel like my room is the panopticon. Everything and anything I do in this room at any given time may or may not be on display for others to see. Usually just her, but our housemates feel some (unauthorized) freedom to come and go as they please to her room by walking through my room -- and in reverse, they of course would be completely put off and disheveled if I just burst into their room all the time but ehh. Anyhow, It's so frustrating. Not that I have anything to hide, but I don't like these people that I live with. They are extremely judgemental and not at all my friends. They are in fact people I see on busses and in class that I think oh man I can't stand those people. And woo hoo, I live in a house of them. So the fact that they are constantly moving in and out of my private space, at their will, puts me in an awkard place. When I hear the girl who lives above me, let's call her Janis (yes like from Friends, that level of annoyance), walking up thes tairs into the apartment or down the stairs about to enter my bedroom, I automatically shift whatever I am doing so that I am either pretending to be on the phone or listening to my ipod or i'll even go as far as to change whatever website I am on and pull up an old word document to make it look like i am busy writing a paper just to avoid her. She walks in the room and quietly observes everything. Even if Janice doesnt linger very long, she always glances at my computer screen or the mess on the floor in the corner. It makes me cringe and anxious.
I really don't give a damn what she thinks but it's so hard to not be self-conscious when the one place you are supposed to be out of the public eye, your own private bedroom, is a place where you are under the most scrutiny. I can always be called out on something, I can never say that I am too busy with school work to do something bc she can see if I am watching TV or napping. I can't go out for a night and not come home without inquisitive gazes making judgements or knowing everything i do. Whereas they all live in their own private spaces, and they can do the exact same things I do, and no one will ever know.
I truly feel like a prisoner in my own house. It actually has had physical effects on me to the point where I became ill enough to be medicated and had to start seeing a pyschiatrist to treat my anxiety. I can totally understand the effectiveness of the panopticon having experienced my own version first hand.
discipline from HS to College
When thinking about the shift in torture that Foucault discusses. I tried to imagine a similar shift in my own experience. In high school we would get detention for being late to class or just misbehaving. We had people watching over us all the time: teachers, security guards, or other students who would tell on us. In college it has shifted to a more individual atmosphere in which you truly become responsible for everything you do. Should you get caught doing something in the dorms that you were supposed to, there are RA's who would write you up. These were different from detentions. Instead of sitting in a room for 30 minutes after school, in college we had to meet with the resident director and discuss why we did whatever it was we were doing wrong and perhaps had to create a bulletin board discussing the issue for the residence hall.
Shoplifters
I once knew this girl who was a serious klepto - she would steal thousands of dollars of clothes from high end department stores like Bloomingdale's. Well she recently got caught, although she had been doing this for several years now it was her first time. The way she got caught was when an undercover had noticed her behavior behind the dressing room. I was always suspicious of the fact that no cameras have ever caught her before. This is somewhat like the Panoptic observation in Foucault. My friend knew there were cameras, and knew that she could have been watched but took that chance to steal anyway. But one thing she never watched out for were other customers in the store. At least now she has learned her lesson.
Work Under Way on ‘Virtual Fence’
An organization called the Secure Border Initiative has begun construction on what is being called a "virtual border" between the United States and Mexico. This border, which will cost billions of dollars to construct, will be made up of various electronic equipment that will allow border patrols to monitor the border "virtually." The purpose of the border is to stop illegal immigration and smuggling. The construction of this "virtual border" seems to fit into United States citizens' paranoia about foreign infiltration, culturally, and now through disease. In a world that is affected by globalization and the compression of time and space, calling this fence a "virtual border" seems to be an attempt to restrict foreign bodies as well as foreign ideas. In reality, there is no financially efficient way of restricting illegal immigration, and the the construction of this "virtual border"will operate as a physical manifestation of our culture's mental guarding against the threat of foreign infiltration. The fact that enough support was raised to begin construction of the border reflects many people's need for a sense of security in a globalized world.
Swine Flu
This is just what I have been thinking about the swine flu...when the press discusses the swine flu, they state these facts about deaths and prevention in a panicked manner and thus making the audience scared as well. One of my teachers in high school strongly believed that the media was teamed up with George Bush in a conspiracy theory. He said that the whole SARS, bird flu, and other things like Y2K were used to scare the public to sway their thoughts from other things that were happening. While I don't necessarily believe the same is true for the swine flu, I do feel that the media is trying to scare us. Perhaps it is just another one of their tactics in order to get us to stop thinking about other things that are going on in the world because lately all I've been hearing about is the swine flu and nothing else.
Branching off of Why TMZ Why?
I agree with you that the media is awful and seductive at the same time. I admit to browsing perezhilton.com from time to time. Also, since the Great Vodka Spill of '08 occurred on top of my TV, I only get a few channels such as Bravo and MTV.. So when I want to tune out my loud roommates, it is often to the same ridiculous "reality" shows about skinny beautiful rich people. I honestly do NOT CARE about these people. They really piss me off more than anything. I could go on for a day about how warped these people's priorities are (or to be fair, how warped the editors of these shows portray them). But I'll spare you all and I won't even go on that rant. What really does bother me, however, is the media shoving this in our faces. As strong of a person as I like to believe myself to be, I can't help but sometimes feel like my priorities and values are uprooted by being a consumer of this media. Particularly about my body. I like to tell myself that I am who I am and I'm pretty damn proud of it. I go around thinking, Ok, So I am not 110 lbs with clear skin and designer clothes. So What?? If my appearance or level of chic is a concern of my friends then they are not people i want to be friends with in the first place. I walk around confident and glad to be who I am.
Then i turn on the TV.
...And not on just one channel, or one show-- but every channel, every show, there are these flawless beauties parading around crying about not being beautiful enough, having judges and panels tell them what they need to work on to be more beautiful because they aren't cutting it, etc etc. And if you see enough of it, repeatedly, it starts to get to you.
There is a mirror near my TV. I was watching this show and they told the girl she wasn't skinny enough. She probably is about 6 inches taller and 20 lbs lighter than me. I glanced in the mirror as they were criticizing her and instead of my reflection all I could see was fat and cellulite and clogged pores. i instinctively sucked my stomach in and fixed my hair to cover a blemish on my forehead.
This is how invasive the media is. It disgusts me! It is enough to penetrate my confidence and make me think I am not good enough by throwing these unrealistic standards at me constantly. I know that a lot of women feel this way. Especially young girls (that's where it all starts to be honest). And I am sure plenty guys do too. It's so frustrating that my perception of my own body is vulnerable to this shallow generation of media influence. I don't think that turning on the TV should be a blow to my confidence. But I feel like that's what is has come to.
Then i turn on the TV.
...And not on just one channel, or one show-- but every channel, every show, there are these flawless beauties parading around crying about not being beautiful enough, having judges and panels tell them what they need to work on to be more beautiful because they aren't cutting it, etc etc. And if you see enough of it, repeatedly, it starts to get to you.
There is a mirror near my TV. I was watching this show and they told the girl she wasn't skinny enough. She probably is about 6 inches taller and 20 lbs lighter than me. I glanced in the mirror as they were criticizing her and instead of my reflection all I could see was fat and cellulite and clogged pores. i instinctively sucked my stomach in and fixed my hair to cover a blemish on my forehead.
This is how invasive the media is. It disgusts me! It is enough to penetrate my confidence and make me think I am not good enough by throwing these unrealistic standards at me constantly. I know that a lot of women feel this way. Especially young girls (that's where it all starts to be honest). And I am sure plenty guys do too. It's so frustrating that my perception of my own body is vulnerable to this shallow generation of media influence. I don't think that turning on the TV should be a blow to my confidence. But I feel like that's what is has come to.
When the Patient Gets Lost in Translation
Elaine Scarry discusses the problems that arise when one is attempting to describe his or her pain to another. She claims that language lacks the proper vocabulary to adequately express pain and describe its nuances and various manifestations. This fact becomes even more complicated when we introduce the issue of language barriers. This article describes the experience of Pauline W. Chen, an English-speaking doctor who treated a Spanish-speaking patient, Armando. After performing a liver transplant on Armando, Chen describes her difficulty in interpreting Armando's descriptions of pain, and she explains how she knew the physical Armando better than the "mental" Armando. If Scarry is correct, Dr. Chen has a hard enough time treating the pain of English-speaking patients, so treating Armando's pain is next to impossible. Surprisingly, however, Dr. Chen, along with many other doctors, fail to retrieve an interpretor for their consultations, deciding that consideration for the patient is outweighed by time constraints. Additionally, interpretor services are not always available, due to limited staff and budget constraints. The article describes a patient's basic need to communicate with his or her doctor, as well as the doctor's duty to consider patient input in his or her treatment plan. The situation described in this article represents the Western ideology behind professional medical care; that is, the body can be treated without any consideration for the "mind."
Value of the Body
My two childhood best friends joined the marines after high school. When we were growing up they would always play their war video games and toy soldiers and intense versions of capture flag and all those typical boy things. I remember also that as we got older, while they did understand that the war going on, and war in general, was more serious than just "blowing up some terrorists" and "shooting up those terrorists mother f*ers", i can tell that they still thought that war was going to be like their video games and our hardcore water gun fights in the woods. Even though these two guys are very smart and kind people, they still would refer to the killing of the "bad guys"-- whoever that may be-- as something fun and that they would do with joy. It's been a few years now and they have been overseas. They have seen war and they have seen death. And although they've never told me explicitly, I have pretty strong reason to believe that they were responsible for death as well.
The reason I am even thinking about this is because I have been responding in other blogs about how people value the body in different contexts. I find it interesting to compare the attitudes that my boys have towards death from their pre-marine life to their post-war life. Before they were so amped to kill those bad guys. Now, they never talk about it. They get snippy with me if I make jokes like about hurting myself or wanting to kill someone. They say things like, "don't ever say that Reg" whereas maybe 5 years ago they'd say something like "i'll go get my bebe gun". (Joking of course but still). It is interesting to see how they value the body differently after witnessing and participating in violence. I am not saying that they are totally changed, of course if they get drunk and have a night out with the guys they will joke around about violent stuff that boys do. But since I know these people on a very personal level, and they let that male bravado down with me and aren't really worried about being somber or vulnerable. It's evident to me that their values have changed. I see that, to them, the body, one that is threatening or benign, is no longer just some thing that can be mutilated and destroyed nonchalantly.
The reason I am even thinking about this is because I have been responding in other blogs about how people value the body in different contexts. I find it interesting to compare the attitudes that my boys have towards death from their pre-marine life to their post-war life. Before they were so amped to kill those bad guys. Now, they never talk about it. They get snippy with me if I make jokes like about hurting myself or wanting to kill someone. They say things like, "don't ever say that Reg" whereas maybe 5 years ago they'd say something like "i'll go get my bebe gun". (Joking of course but still). It is interesting to see how they value the body differently after witnessing and participating in violence. I am not saying that they are totally changed, of course if they get drunk and have a night out with the guys they will joke around about violent stuff that boys do. But since I know these people on a very personal level, and they let that male bravado down with me and aren't really worried about being somber or vulnerable. It's evident to me that their values have changed. I see that, to them, the body, one that is threatening or benign, is no longer just some thing that can be mutilated and destroyed nonchalantly.
Recession Anxiety Seeps Into Everyday Lives
This article discusses people who have an increase in panic attacks due to anxiety about the recession. Some people who are not actually having any financial troubles become debilitatingly anxious if they think too much about the economic situation. The media's focus on economic issues has led to many people feeling anxious about things to which they would normally not pay any attention. The media using scary phrases like "economic crisis" leads to a general public feeling of fear. In our class discussions of the media, we talked about the ways in which journalists are responsible for creating realities. Today's media has created a reality of economic uncertainty of which we are all a part. This reality is causing people to become anxious and panic despite the fact that their own economic situations are stable. In the case of the people quoted in this article, the reality presented by the media has overwhelmed and obscured these individual's personal realities.
Joy and Anticipation for Soldiers’ Return
This article tells the story of thousands of people who are waiting for their family members in the New Jersey National Guard to return home after serving overseas. An armory in Teaneck, NJ, prepares families for soldiers' returns by making them wear helmets for an extended period of time. The discomfort experienced during this minor ordeal is supposed to be representative of the pain and discomfort a soldier experiences while abroad. Exercises like these are meant to forge a link between the reuniting family members, and it serves as an exercise in understanding another's physical pain. The article also talks about being mentally prepared for a soldier's return, acknowledging the fact that the soldiers' personalities are somehow changed during their service. This reminded me of Foucault's idea that soldiers can be made, and it is neccesary that they are made and changed in order to deal with the trials of combat. This articles reflects the belief that soldiers can also be unmade. Many mothers and wives of solders are quoted as expressing a desire for a return to normalcy, that the lives they lived before their sons and husbands were sent abroad could somehow be restored with the rehabilitation of the returning soldiers.
Swine Flu in Mexico
In our discussion last week of the media coverage of the swine flu outbreak , someone mentioned the detrimental effect that this coverage may have on our relations with Mexico. This article talks about how Mexico is planning to recover from the bad press and economic decline resulting from the media coverage. The Mexican government plans to spend billions of dollars advertising their tourist attractions, lowered hotel rates, and travel package deals. Despite the World Health Organization's pandemic warning, a travel agent says that many people are encouraging travel to Mexico after learning the "real facts about the H1N1 virus."
It would seem that the Mexican tourist industry is trying to end the hysteria surrounding news coverage of the swine flu outbreak. By ignoring the recommendations of the World Health Organization, they are denying foreign control over their own body politic. They attempt to present a realistic and comparative view of the situation, rather than assigning arbitrary pandemic levels and definitions. However, whether or not the tourism industry is pushing this view for the sake of neutral media coverage or for financial gain remains to be seen.
It would seem that the Mexican tourist industry is trying to end the hysteria surrounding news coverage of the swine flu outbreak. By ignoring the recommendations of the World Health Organization, they are denying foreign control over their own body politic. They attempt to present a realistic and comparative view of the situation, rather than assigning arbitrary pandemic levels and definitions. However, whether or not the tourism industry is pushing this view for the sake of neutral media coverage or for financial gain remains to be seen.
James Bond Style Anti-Terrorism
A James Bond marathon has been playing on TV recently and I thought that it would be a good topic for a blog. The James Bond series has been one of the most successful British movie franchises to date, with world-wide acclaim. The character Bond, James Bond, is a suave renegade spy who does what he needs to do to catch the bad guys, while always having time to pick up a few gorgeous women along the way. While not as brutal as a Jack Bauer like character, he still is able to avoid international laws without much consequence and in the end still gets praised for it. Even though Bond isn't a real man, the popularity that the series has seen over the past few decades is a testament to how many people truly admire the character and his antics. All of this makes me wonder, would a real-life version of a Bond-like spy, who goes after terrorists without adhering to the law receive the same kind of praise from the general public, or is it just his sex appeal and skills with a gun, that make him so intriguing? Thoughts?
Why TMZ, why?
Every time I go online my browser opens up to aol.com and i always peruse the top news stories that they feel are the highlights of the moment. It normally consists of a serious news story, some house hold fixer upper, something about dating, a fallen child star and where they are today, and the remainder is about stars that are popular today.
Today the main stories are about Jen and Brad getting back together (NOOOO!!!!!???) and about the Jon & Kate Plus 8 cheating scandal. Why do we care so much? Are our lives not exciting enough? or is it just the media dishing this garbage to us that makes us believe that we care? Most likely the latter.
Mass media is such a mystery. It shoves pictures of "reality" into our lives and keeps us from being content with what we do have. We're not rich enough, skinny enough, don't have enough friends, don't have enough kids. blah blah blah. Although I can't stand sites such as TMZ and those awful reality shows like "The hills" and 'The real housewives of every rich, posh, upper-class neighborhood" I can't help but be drawn to it as it's constantly in my face.
It's even worse when mass media assists in spreading a wide spread panic such as what is occurring today with the Swine Flu. It's awful and unstoppable!
Are you listening?
Although I honestly could not handle much of the Scarry reading, her point on pain as the unmaking of language absolutely had an effect on me. More and more I'm trying to find other things which cannot actually be spoken and expressed independently. Conversely I've also been thinking about my own communication of pain. I never realized how much we need to communicate our most minute experiences at all times. It seems as if as a culture we only feel our feelings and actions are validated if they are somehow observed and judged- why update your facebook status if not to have someone click the 'I like' button. Our most personal moments, worst break ups, most awful hangovers and lowest failing grades are the first things we publish publicly. Is that a release of our pain- if Scarry is looking for a recreation of language, I propose that things like twitter are a new language medium. People seem to be afraid to take their pain and suffer in silence- something which can actually be really valuable because its an important time for introspection, (is that a word? Did I just make that up??). Scarry speaks about our inability to explain pain to others, but I feel like it is more important to our society to simply have others recognize the fact that we are in pain- do we look for empathy or sympathy? Do we want pity or to know we are not alone- that we are in fact not unique, though we attempt to stand out with clever status updates and deep quotes. Are our feelings only real if someone else realizes them?
Obviously communication is important, but more and more it seems like it consumes us. Everything we do is about communicating a message to others- what we wear, what we say, where we go etc. We define ourselves through other people's experiences of us. What about how we feel? I am so consumed by the meaning of all that I say and do- that I have no idea what it means to me- or even what it means to be me! Why do I need others to listen to who I am- isn't this the central idea behind a 'blog' in the first place? The journals we lock and keep away from nosy siblings are no longer enough- our privacy isn't what we value it's our publicity. When did the moment occur when we went from coveting the safe, private, me-centered space of a journal to using blogs as a way of prostrating our innermost feelings and thoughts so that our deepest selves can be reified by an 'i like' button or a 'comment'. I'm bitter.
They Just Wrote It... They Didn't Do It... So They're OK.
The Abu Ghraib prison scandal has brought up many controversial issues for our country lately: what is torture? do we need it? does it work? should we go public about it? Who is responsible? This last question, of responsibility and blame, is one that I am curious about. I watched a video on youtube which talks about the lawyers who wrote the memos authorizing the torture that occurred. There is a debate over these lawyers' role. Some believe that those who wrote these memos should be prosecuted where others don't feel they should be held accountable. These lawyers authorized memos that gave "legal cover" for torture techniques such as slamming heads against walls and water boarding. In my opinion, Hell yeah they should be held accountable for this! So what they didn't carry out the actual process of torturing these individuals --guilty or not -- they were fully aware of what they were authorizing. I think of this like a hitman. You hire a hitman, they off someone for you, but since you didnt commit the actual crime--just funded and organized it-- are you not to blame? Since you did not actually execute an act of violence upon another body are you not responsible? I don't believe that. There are different forms of power relationships acting on the body that exist in this example. There's the relationship between the body of the condemned and those who represent the regime/government and carry out the act. Then of course there is the actual political power that goes on between the body of the condemened and the regime/government itself. I believe that the authors of these memos ought to have the finger pointed at them just as much as the military officers who followed them.
Swine Flu
Swine Flu, what an "epidemic". When we discussed it in class on Monday we discussed the media coverage and the presidents address to the public, and how they renamed it H1N1 or whatever, but yet the media still calls it the Swine Flu. Why is it that the media is still using the name Swine Flu? Is it because the public already associates with Swine Flu? Renaming the flu is a great way for people to stop associating the flu with pigs and pork like products, and i am sure there are people out there that are doing just that. But, being it is so late in the game, how can you rename something that is already out in the open as something else?
On to a different way to look at the Swine Flu, the media coverage. It seems as if there is nothing else that is going on in the world, but the swine flu. The media is taking something that should not be as fearful as terrorist attacks, and making it seem as if who ever comes in contact with it will die. The first person to have died from the flu, was televised on every station, online feed, and made into a huge ordeal. Why is it that something like a different, or unfamiliar strand of the flu makes people panic? over 36,000 people die from the regular flu each year, why not make that a big deal? Why not televise the first persons death from the regular flu? It is amazing how media replay the epidemics, disasters, or terrorist attacks over and over making it a disaster marathon. The worst part is people like to watch disaster marathons, that is another puzzling conclusion. Why put yourself through that torture? It is torture inflicted by the media, and people torture themselves by watching it. I guess that is why, in class, we discussed media, and then went on to talk about torture. They go hand in hand.
Another American Idol
Okay, this post has nothing to do with the show American Idol but she would be qualified, in some regard. This post is due to the new nude pictures found of the winner of the Miss California Pageant. You may remember this woman as the Miss America contestant who, in response to Perez Hilton's question, said that gay marriage should not be legalized. Pictures have been found of the California winner topless, posing with her back to the camera while covering her chest, looking back and smiling. These pictures caused an uproar because it is in the contract that the Miss pageant contestants are not allowed to partake in or have partaken in any nude modeling. Miss California's response to these pictures was that they were taken for modeling shots when she was a teenager and that she didn't understand what was going on. She tried to explain that she was very young and that she didn't know that this was wrong. The pictures, in fact, do not show her breasts or her butt, just her open back. I do not feel that Miss California should be revoked of her title just because of these pictures, as they are not, in my opinion, actual nude modeling pictures. I can understand how they might be up for question, but having a bare back is not nudity, and not inappropriate.
American Idol
I do not watch American Idol, but I do read the Perez Hilton blog once a week or so. Apparently, one of the contestants (I believe his name is Adam) is a gay man that likes to dress up in drag on occasion. Pictures of this man have now leaked onto the internet, and his privacy has been invaded. These pictures are of the contestant dressed in elaborate make up and outfits while making out with other men. There are approximately seven pictures, and they have many people in an uproar. Bill O'Reilly talked about the pictures of his show, saying that they were disgusting and inappropriate. He also said that this is not the kind of person that any American should idolize because he is a homosexual, and encouraged his viewers to vote against this young man because who he is is wrong. I find this sort of commentary to be hideous, and when I first heard what Bill O'Reilly had said I became extremely angry. Late night talk show host Chelsea Handler commented on Bill O'Reilly's remarks, questioning why he chooses to waste his time belittling this young man while there is a full-out war on terror over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Good question, Ms. Handler.
Response to Sasha Grey
I completely agree with Jail Bird's opinion of Sasha Grey on Tyra. This young girl is just comfortable with her body and her sexuality, and she wants to share it with others because it is something she is proud of. I don't blame her for wanting to make money and do the thing she loves, as that's what I hope to do one day if I'm lucky enough to get into the field of publishing. Although the majority of our society may condemn pornography and open sexuality, there is nothing inherently wrong with it, and I do not find it to be immoral. In fact, I find our society to be very contradictory. We live in an extremely individualistic society in which people are told be follow their hearts and dreams and to be the unique person that they are. We pride ourselves on our notion that anything is possible. But when we encounter an individual that does not fit within our modes of interest, we attack them as a group and determine that they are not a good person to be a part of our American society. We determine them delinquent and, in the cases of criminals, we lock them up behind bars. I'm not equating a criminal with a pornographer, but the two are almost as equally opposed by a good number of our society. I believe we need to stop focusing on the bad and criticizing, and realize the good that pornography has done for this girl. We can see that she is comfortable with her line of work, and that the last thing she would want is for someone to tell her what she is doing is wrong because it makes her happy.
Response to Stripper at a Bachelor Party
I agree, there is nothing wrong with a stripper at bachelor party so long as everything is kept reasonable. By this I mean that the stripper puts on a show, stripping and possible lapdances. I believe that there is nothing wrong with a man or woman admiring another person's body, naked or clothed, and that this sort of attraction is natural. I can see where the wife may not agree with this, but inevitably her husband is most likely going to see another naked woman after they get married, in a magazine, in a movie, in porn, or (hopefully not) if he decides to spend time with another woman. This control the future wife is trying to exert on her husband is based on the basic emotion of fear. This fear comes idea that she is 'not good enough' for him and that he will 'find something better', and so much fear that she believes he could find it in the stripper at this bachelor party. I mean, after all, there was that hit song "I'm in love with a stripper," even the media supports her fear. Anyway, what I'm trying to say that the real source of the problem is within the wife, not the husband. The source of the problem is the wife's fear that is causing her to be so upset, and the idea of her husband having a bachelor party with a stripper is torturing her emotions. Now the poor husband just has to decide what to do with his party.
complete 360
In class on Monday there was a discussion if we made a complete 360 in class from the beginning of the semester to the last day of the semester or was it all over the place. Well in my opinion the last article we read in class kind of wrapped up most of our discussions. It talked about the three types of body, torture, war, how people interpret the body, media coverage (in a way) and so on. This article may have had some problems, but it seemed to wrap up a lot. The class in total, I did not leave there confused about anything, I guess certain questions that were asked, but I left there with thinking to myself, every article we read was some how related to the next. Even though the articles had nothing to do with one another, there was a building of concepts and intellectual questioning and thinking that each article helped prepare. In my opinion the class did a 360 it connected all the main themes and no matter how far we strayed from Foucault or Scarry, or "Mindful Body" and so on, they some how were connected to one another and pieced the novels and articles together.
Private Practice
The season finale of ABC's Private Practice was both disturbing and thrilling. The most disturbing part of this episode was the story line of a psychiatric patient, Katie, and her psychiatrist, Violet. Katie became ill when she had a miscarriage, and soon after, Violet became pregnant. From then on, Katie would look at Violet with disdain, to a point were it made Violet extremely uncomfortable. Violet suggested that Katie be hospitalized for her condition, but no one listened to her. At the end of the episode, we see Violet in her house relaxing, and the doorbell rings. Violet goes to the door to find Katie, and is confused, as patients are not allowed to have that kind of personal information on their doctors. Violet asks what Katie is doing at her home, and Katie attacks Violet with a needle and injects her with fluid while saying "You have my baby." The fluid makes Violet paralyzed from the neck down, and she cannot move. Katie is under the impression that the baby when from her body to Violet's body, and the Violet purposefully stole it from Katie to have as her own. Katie believes that something that is hers within her body is transferable to another person's body. Albeit it very terrifying, this episode gives an interesting look into the mind-body concept.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Response to Sasha Grey on Tyra Banks
After having read Jail Bird's blog on the Tyra Banks' show episode with Sasha Grey, I give my opinion on the issue. I agree with Jail Bird that the Tyra Banks show definitely intentionally tried to change Sasha Grey's appearance on the show to make her look younger and therefore influence the audiences response to what she was saying. I believe is a device that many talk shows use to manipulate the way that their guests contribute to each episode, for example Jerry Springer's show always has guests who look their worst to try and reinforce the trashiness of the story he is trying to tell. But, the worst part of the Sasha Grey epsiode in my opinion, was that Tyra Banks kept trying to get Sasha to admit to a sexually abusive past as a reason for why she was in the porn industry, even though Sasha insisted that there was no abusive history. Tyra Banks' inability to comprehend why someone with no abusive history would want to be a part of a sex industry, is a reflection of what I think a lot of American's feel about a female's sexuality; that it is abnormal for them to want to explore their own body-self through intercourse, unlike men for which this type of self-exploration is not only normal but expected. In all, I think that Jail Bird brings up a great point in the Tyra Banks-Sasha Grey episode because it identifies how the social body can condemn the sexual body of an individual, especially a woman, and how this affects industries such as pornography.
Germany refuses to halt Demjanjuk transfer
In Zarkov's book, we discussed the violence and torture that ensued from a war. Currently, in the media, there has been stories about accountability for torture and violence conducted by Nazi Germany. Germany is pushing for the extradiction of war criminal Jon Demjanjuk, who is currently in the United States. He is charged with assisting in about 29,000 murders in a Polish concentration camp. If he ends up being extradited, he will be held accountable for his participation in these acts of violence and torture, which occurred over 60 years ago.
Poll finds lack of support for 'torture' investigations
Throughout the semester, we discussed the use of torture to produce a confession in the context of Scarry's book and in the Bush administrations approach to combating the War on Terror. It has been debated whether this use of torture was effective and appropriate. Though the torture appears to have been ineffective and did not carry the support of the American public, the attached article from CNN, titled Poll finds lack of support for 'torture' investigations shows that Americans do not support investigations into that use of torture. As a result of this public opinion, are we, as Americans, suggesting that torture is acceptable? If the roles were reversed and a foreign power used these same means of torture on American citizens, would we accept a foreign public opinion that torture investigations did not need to be conducted?
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Scattered Thoughts on this American Dream
Though I do believe the idea of the “American Dream” has been re-defined for some, as suggested by Chris. It also, unfortunately has not changed for the most important figures in our population, the wealthy. The narrative of the “American Dream” by these figures attributes their outstanding personal characteristics, such as hard work and perseverance, to their success. This attitude of the self made man justifies the wealthy as deserving of their social status, high above the rest. Yet, in reality, the wealthy did not do it alone. Without the specific economic conditions and the support of investors and society, the wealthy could not and would not be where they are today.
Most disturbing is the lack of acts in philanthropy made by the wealthy. Their denial of owing anything back to society, a struggling population to which some are suffering in poverty, is disgusting. Even if they do give, they do not give enough. We are the only developed country in the world that has people dying, because we do not have nationalized healthcare. This is especially concerning when the possibility of such healthcare and funding could easily be accounted for in an increase in taxation on the wealthiest top percent of citizens in our nation. What places the well-being of one life above another? Why are we valued and insured only if we are seen as productive members of society? Suddenly my mind flutters back to the Titanic. Why was it that the wealthy and privileged were the first to be escorted off the boat? Even strategically they populate the upper decks, isolated from the lower class, stowed away beneath their feet.
Unfortunately, the idea of the wealthy as deserving of their riches has trickled down more efficiently than the economic theory. The poor, captivated by this “rags to riches” narrative (supported by the wealthy) allow the poor to feel less hostile towards the wealthy and hopeful of their own eventual rise to the top. In this case, even the poor value the rich above themselves in the social politic.
Money and riches should not define our worth.
Most disturbing is the lack of acts in philanthropy made by the wealthy. Their denial of owing anything back to society, a struggling population to which some are suffering in poverty, is disgusting. Even if they do give, they do not give enough. We are the only developed country in the world that has people dying, because we do not have nationalized healthcare. This is especially concerning when the possibility of such healthcare and funding could easily be accounted for in an increase in taxation on the wealthiest top percent of citizens in our nation. What places the well-being of one life above another? Why are we valued and insured only if we are seen as productive members of society? Suddenly my mind flutters back to the Titanic. Why was it that the wealthy and privileged were the first to be escorted off the boat? Even strategically they populate the upper decks, isolated from the lower class, stowed away beneath their feet.
Unfortunately, the idea of the wealthy as deserving of their riches has trickled down more efficiently than the economic theory. The poor, captivated by this “rags to riches” narrative (supported by the wealthy) allow the poor to feel less hostile towards the wealthy and hopeful of their own eventual rise to the top. In this case, even the poor value the rich above themselves in the social politic.
Money and riches should not define our worth.
Live Free Or Die
To this day, New Hampshire remains the only state in the country that has not yet passed a law requiring adult passengers to wear seat belts. With an anthem of “Live Free or Die,” New Hampshire residents see the law as a menacing force, an example of government bullying that threatens the historical independence attached to citizens of the state. But how does this make sense? If passing such a law will protect and save lives, why not give up your freedom of choice to wear a seat belt or not? Most readily debated in the media over the past few years, a state news paper warns and educates the public on the controversy:
"Your decision-making authority will be taken by degrees, one good-for-you regulation at a time, until legislators are satisfied that you are safe. And they will never be satisfied."
This quote echoes the popular cultural narrative of a native New Hampshire resident. With a strong belief in individual freedom, residents believe this law will allow government to slowly control other personal decisions. This type of surveillance, and bodily control through law, is not as ridiculous to object to as one may think. Surely, you could argue that if people really believe it is in their best interest not to wear a seat belt, New Hampshire should rephrase their anthem to “Live Free AND Die.” But this controversy, little to do with an actual decision to wear a seat belt or not, is more than relevant to a larger issue. Under the Bush administration, we have seen our rights as citizens and free individuals slowly taken away from us. After the attacks of 9/11, privacy acts were abolished, surveillance tactics made legal and authority figures more powerful all for “our own good.” Thus, I believe New Hampshire’s rebellion is the strength of one state in opposition to a much larger issue. New Hampshire challenges the moral infringement of our rights wrongfully justified by government.
"Your decision-making authority will be taken by degrees, one good-for-you regulation at a time, until legislators are satisfied that you are safe. And they will never be satisfied."
This quote echoes the popular cultural narrative of a native New Hampshire resident. With a strong belief in individual freedom, residents believe this law will allow government to slowly control other personal decisions. This type of surveillance, and bodily control through law, is not as ridiculous to object to as one may think. Surely, you could argue that if people really believe it is in their best interest not to wear a seat belt, New Hampshire should rephrase their anthem to “Live Free AND Die.” But this controversy, little to do with an actual decision to wear a seat belt or not, is more than relevant to a larger issue. Under the Bush administration, we have seen our rights as citizens and free individuals slowly taken away from us. After the attacks of 9/11, privacy acts were abolished, surveillance tactics made legal and authority figures more powerful all for “our own good.” Thus, I believe New Hampshire’s rebellion is the strength of one state in opposition to a much larger issue. New Hampshire challenges the moral infringement of our rights wrongfully justified by government.
The American Dream (Part 2)
In the previous post, I spoke of the relative nature of social positioning, and the idea that one could strategically position herself to increase her personal value (or their position within the social body). Both of these ideas are especially important in times of economic decline, because many of the common discourses are rendered problematic. As the standard of living drops relative to other nations, international comparisons become difficult to swallow. As the nation experiences economic and social problems, comparisons to the past illustrate a disappointing regression. Essentially, it is up to the individual to compensate for the loss of these comparative frameworks with innovative new ones or with the transformation of classical frames.
One of the main primary transformations of classical frames centers on the concept of the American Dream. Although it seems as though economic decline would reveal the fallacy at work, Americans report increased confidence in their ability to obtain the American Dream. Yet, the very concept of the American Dream is something that is constantly changing. Whereas, my first post on this issue postulated it as a sort of ideal scenario whereby one’s wildest dreams would be realized, the concept has evolved to center on a series of abstract values. Rather than expressing the American Dream as the accumulation of massive amounts of wealth, people consider freedom and opportunity as its key values. Rather than referencing their personal desires, which may or may not be possible to obtain, people identify social standards “natural” to the United States. It is as a result of the ideal social framework that the individual is able to feel privileged relative to the citizens of other countries. It is the concept of freedom that presents a bright future despite the problems of our current days.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/08dreampoll.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
The American Dream (Part 1)
One of the most prominent concepts in the United States is “The American Dream”. The idea of the American Dream, of course, is that any individual has the capability of obtaining what they desire through hard work and perseverance. Implicit in this idea is the concept that the only one’s determination and biological capacities may act as a constraint on personal fulfillment. By extension, the social environment cannot restrain the individual.
The idealized version of the American Dream presents the idea that one is capable of absolute fulfillment. However, the very concept of absolute fulfillment often entails the subordination of another individual. To explain this subordination away we consider the actions of the subordinate as inferior to those of the superordinate. In this way, we see that the concept of “hard work” is not an absolute quality, but a relative one. Considering this and the idea that one’s work corresponds to the fruits of their labor, it is apparent that fulfillment also exists as a relative quality.
From this idea, we may derive the image of the population engaged in a constant struggle with one another for limited resources. Yet, there are a multitude of other factors, which operate to complicate/soften this image. We may consider the perception of status set fourth by Weber as consisting of qualities beyond class, namely: status and party. In this conception, there are various ways of asserting one’s high position on the social hierarchy, which do not necessarily correspond to economic wealth. Moreover, we can consider the role of comparisons across time. We may compare our current conditions with those of our ancestors as a means of seeing progress. As each of these processes suggest, there are a multitude of strategic ways of positioning our bodies as having a relatively great value. In the next blog, I hope to expand upon this theoretical basis, and lend some life to this claim.
Wesleyan Shooting
Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/nyregion/08wesleyan.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
The article centers on a religiously motivated shooting at Wesleyan University. A man, identified as Stephen Morgan, shot and killed a 21 year-old student at a bookstore near the university. The man has not been apprehended, and is especially considered a threat to Jewish students enrolled in the University.
The article paints Stephen Morgan as a threat to the social body. It constructs this image through the use of his murder as well as a journal entry expressing threats toward Jewish students. These two actions act to illustrate that he is capable of harming other individuals (the precedent of the murder), and that he has a reason for potentially continuing to do so (personal vendetta against Jews). We can consider this in Foucault’s terms as looking to the soul of the criminal. The individual is considered as a threat, because he is the sum of his previous actions.
What I find interesting here is the conception of continuity within the idea of the soul. In this sense, he killed the woman because of his hate of Jews, he is a potential serial killer because of his persistent hate of Jews, and he has always been a violent person because the girl had previously reported him. In each instance, an aspect of his soul is asserted as an objective quality, supported by a particular aspect of his history. We can consider this practice in a positive light as simplifying the environment and making the job of the police easier (threat -> needs to be caught). However, we may also consider this practice as overly simplistic, with various misconceptions along the way (i.e. the killing may have not been religiously motivated. Killing tied to gender instead; misidentification of “real soul”).
Afghans Protest Civilian Deaths
I would like to briefly discuss the article entitled “Afghans Protest Civilian Deaths”, especially the portion on the use of dead bodies as a referent for the supposed atrocities of the US military. The debate discussed in the article centers on a recent air raid, which claimed the lives of many innocent civilians. Following the raid, the civilians have risen up in protest of the continued occupation of Afghanistan by United States troops. In order to prove/strengthen their claims, protestors have brought many of the bodies directly to the governor’s office.
In class, we considered the differences between media reports and the experiences of those on the ground, in reality. In Body of War, Zarkov considers how the media plays up actual events for a variety of reasons (be they political, economic, etc.). In this article however, the protestors appear to be directly using aspects of the actual event for their political purposes. The bodies are mutilated because of events in reality; they are not exaggerations, they just are. Yet, we cannot say that these protests are devoid of symbolic weight, as the image presented by the protestors allows their success. By showing mutilated women and children, one is able to indexically reference the horrors that created the bodies. Rather than presenting ashes, which appear as dirt without resemblance to the human form, the protestors have bloodied bodies at their disposal.
I do not wish to detract from the claims of the protestors. Rather, I would like to point out that atrocities are often measured along dimensions other than the actual extent of the occurrence. Even when the discursive object is located in the reality, its power is often dependent on its ability to grab the viewer.
Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/world/asia/08afghan.html?pagewanted=1
Sasha Grey on Tyra Banks
Recently, my friend informed me of a segment of the Tyra Banks show that interviewed an 18 year old porn star on the rise to fame. It seemed interesting enough so I decided to check it out on YouTube. According to the episode, Sasha Grey has been in the porn industry for 8 months and has already appeared in over 80 films. Her niche in the industry is her young appearance and ability to play "school-girl" type roles. The episode framed Sasha as a confused and misguided young woman who should not be, or has no reason to be involved in porn. I found this especially interesting due to a response video made by Sasha Grey that was posted on the Internet after the episode aired. In the video, she immediately appears older, and accuses the producers of the Tyra Banks show of editing the interview in their favor. She also informs us that her physical appearance on the show, that Tyra referred to as making her "easily mistakable for a middle school student" was also a request of the producers. Before the episode she was told to come dressed in her everyday clothing, which consisted of a home-made shirt, jeans, and heels. When arriving on set, the producers thought she looked too old and asked her to change into a convenient pink sweater and plain brown shoes.
My analysis of this occurrence frames the media as producing societies disapproval of young girls in the pornography business. Though I personally know I could not participate in such "gang bangs" and other degrading sexual acts on film or in real life, I think it is wrong for the media to frame a young woman as not having the ability to be comfortable with her sexual body and able to make her own decisions. As we have learned, every person experiences their body and their selves differently and she is, by law, an adult and allowed to participate. Thus the Tyra Banks show has taken an ageist approach to the issue, that if adopted completely by society could move to make pornography illegal. My objection to pornography becoming illegal is due to the importance of monitoring such industries. Like other things illegal, outlawing pornography will not stop its production. Thus, the monitoring of the porn industry is important because it creates rules and regulations that require standards of safety and health for those involved. Though at the same time, I feel conflicted on the issue, because I do not so much support pornography itself and I know that child pornography and pedophelia is suggested in such "school-girl" type roles played by Sasha. Perhaps, if anything, the abolishment of type casting girls in young fantasy driven roles is what is most important.
Thoughts?
My analysis of this occurrence frames the media as producing societies disapproval of young girls in the pornography business. Though I personally know I could not participate in such "gang bangs" and other degrading sexual acts on film or in real life, I think it is wrong for the media to frame a young woman as not having the ability to be comfortable with her sexual body and able to make her own decisions. As we have learned, every person experiences their body and their selves differently and she is, by law, an adult and allowed to participate. Thus the Tyra Banks show has taken an ageist approach to the issue, that if adopted completely by society could move to make pornography illegal. My objection to pornography becoming illegal is due to the importance of monitoring such industries. Like other things illegal, outlawing pornography will not stop its production. Thus, the monitoring of the porn industry is important because it creates rules and regulations that require standards of safety and health for those involved. Though at the same time, I feel conflicted on the issue, because I do not so much support pornography itself and I know that child pornography and pedophelia is suggested in such "school-girl" type roles played by Sasha. Perhaps, if anything, the abolishment of type casting girls in young fantasy driven roles is what is most important.
Thoughts?
Living Vicariously Through Our Spawn
Though I rarely admit to watching television, I have found myself more recently involved with the device. Disturbingly, I can even admit to the development of savvy navigation skills, as I am finally able to understand the once foreign buttons on my remote. Seeing how I grew up with only a few TV channels (Al Jazeera, CNN International, MTV Europe, and a channel airing re-runs of Bay Watch around the clock), I have never been one to pay much attention to television or develop a weekly routine attached to the airing of a particular program. That is... until now.
For the past few months I have developed an unhealthy relationship with, not one, but two programs. Toddlers and Tiaras on TLC, and Little Miss Perfect on WE. Both television programs are relatively neutral documentaries that take a "behind the scenes" look into the world of child pageantry. Each episode focuses on one specific pageant and selects a few contestants from the pageant to learn more about and follow before, after, and during the event. The children participating in these events range in ages, from as young as a few months to around twelve years old.
Though I believe both programs to be fairly neutral, neither fully criticizing or supporting child pageantry, after watching a handful of these episodes I have come to my own conclusions. Drawing on reoccurring themes from interviews with both, contestants and their mothers, the majority of children seem highly influenced and controlled through the body politic. Not only is this a visible phenomenon, as mothers flail their arms and point at their smiles from the side lines as to direct their child on stage, but more importantly, it is deeply embedded in the psyche of these "living dolls." When interviewed, both contestant and mother relay similar if not exact reasons and opinions for their wanting to participate in pageants. In reality, many of these children have little to no choice in the matter and are raised to live and breath pageants from a young age, adopting their parents opinions and thoughts.
Pageants, are also responsible for teaching children a false understanding of physical beauty, by placing a high value on the appearance of ones body. When compared against each other, an "all-naturaul" contestant (meaning little to no make up) is usually less likely to win in competition against a "high glam" or "glitz" contestant (full make up, hair extensions, and a bright dress that is sparkly to the point of blinding the audience). Though mothers claim pageants teach their daughters how to be confident, it is wrong to teach children that confidence can only be found through physical appearance.
Seeing how the issue exhausts me, I rather not rant much longer about the issue, I only leave you all with the thought of the "living doll." Mothers, well past the age of playing with barbies, have turned to their own daughters as a source of entertainment... Creepy.
Interesting photo retouching website that I found:
http://www.photoretouchinglab.com/miss-teen-usa-pageant-photo-retouch-online-glitz.html
For the past few months I have developed an unhealthy relationship with, not one, but two programs. Toddlers and Tiaras on TLC, and Little Miss Perfect on WE. Both television programs are relatively neutral documentaries that take a "behind the scenes" look into the world of child pageantry. Each episode focuses on one specific pageant and selects a few contestants from the pageant to learn more about and follow before, after, and during the event. The children participating in these events range in ages, from as young as a few months to around twelve years old.
Though I believe both programs to be fairly neutral, neither fully criticizing or supporting child pageantry, after watching a handful of these episodes I have come to my own conclusions. Drawing on reoccurring themes from interviews with both, contestants and their mothers, the majority of children seem highly influenced and controlled through the body politic. Not only is this a visible phenomenon, as mothers flail their arms and point at their smiles from the side lines as to direct their child on stage, but more importantly, it is deeply embedded in the psyche of these "living dolls." When interviewed, both contestant and mother relay similar if not exact reasons and opinions for their wanting to participate in pageants. In reality, many of these children have little to no choice in the matter and are raised to live and breath pageants from a young age, adopting their parents opinions and thoughts.
Pageants, are also responsible for teaching children a false understanding of physical beauty, by placing a high value on the appearance of ones body. When compared against each other, an "all-naturaul" contestant (meaning little to no make up) is usually less likely to win in competition against a "high glam" or "glitz" contestant (full make up, hair extensions, and a bright dress that is sparkly to the point of blinding the audience). Though mothers claim pageants teach their daughters how to be confident, it is wrong to teach children that confidence can only be found through physical appearance.
Seeing how the issue exhausts me, I rather not rant much longer about the issue, I only leave you all with the thought of the "living doll." Mothers, well past the age of playing with barbies, have turned to their own daughters as a source of entertainment... Creepy.
Interesting photo retouching website that I found:
http://www.photoretouchinglab.com/miss-teen-usa-pageant-photo-retouch-online-glitz.html
New relationship-new territory??
I just started seeing someone in the past few months who has really altered my perception of myself (for the good) and many aspects of society (for the not so good). I am continually impressed by his ability to span different groups of people, ideologies, what we call 'our past lives', and still be friendly and outgoing. We come from two different social circles, and I'm seeing more and more how these circles are not only a part of us, but also how there gets to be a crossing of the two. I am a naturally jealous and territorial person- something he calls me out on repeatedly not in anger but just so that I am aware. It made me realize how much, when we enter ourselves into a sort of social contract of being in a relationship- we create a new sort of body politic- one where the core members are (hopefully) only two, and the peripheral members are an observing body made up of all of our friends and family.
In regards to my previous posts I find it really amusing that after all of my ranting and raving about the misuse of the female body as synonymous with territory, when my boyfriend made a comment about some other girl making obnoxious comments- I automatically went on the not only defensive but offensive (who does this bitch think she is, her and her ugly-ass fake rack!) as if my territory was being attacked. Somehow, her involvement in my relationship became an attack on our sphere. Does that make him my territory in my subconscious??
Is this why slang terms consider relationships 'conquests'? In all of my fearing of commitment and becoming co-dependant I now see myself as a part of another person. Can I consider this a type of collective identity? I see this also in my friendships- we define ourselves by some uniting characteristic and an attack on that characteristic is an attack on our whole identity. This brings up a lot of the feelings that I had while reading the Nordstrom article and how much one singular event- even if it isn't an act of terror- effects the collective identity of everyone involved.
Is this why slang terms consider relationships 'conquests'? In all of my fearing of commitment and becoming co-dependant I now see myself as a part of another person. Can I consider this a type of collective identity? I see this also in my friendships- we define ourselves by some uniting characteristic and an attack on that characteristic is an attack on our whole identity. This brings up a lot of the feelings that I had while reading the Nordstrom article and how much one singular event- even if it isn't an act of terror- effects the collective identity of everyone involved.
One man's impact in terror
O.k. In going over everyone else's blogs I realize that a) not having a t.v. is the equivalent of living under a rock- I have no idea what these shows are! and b) I come off as a creepy, angry woman who will most likely end up in a trailer with a shotgun and cats. Although this may very well be true- I will try a new tactic with this blog. I wrote my last two while very stressed and overcaffinated yesterday. Let's see how this goes.
I was just reading about the gunman that is lose at Wesleyan. Even looking at these words as I type them I realize the impact that each has on the body who reads the. Gun-man: implying a trigger happy hulking male, Lose: outside of the controlled body, renegade from social norm and Foulcault's notion of control; he cannot be observed so he cannot be controlled. So few words can create such a horrifying picture- my heart truly goes out to the students aand community of Wesleyan.
I've been trying to look at things in contexts and relation to one another and it's so bizzare the impact and force one action can have, and how apathetic we can be towards events on a mass scale. This is not to discount the importance or horror of either of these- but we can read reports daily of the mass casualties to AIDS, in Darfur, or in Gaza- but for some reason when the numbers are that great I feel that we are horrified. I see this as distinct from terror. Terror seems to shake our core and be able to directly impact how we feel about ourselves- horror we can easily dismiss as not our problem. It's horrific, but somehow we can disassociate that from us. I'm curious to hear what other people thing the seperation is between horror and terror in events like these. When are we horrified but not terrorized etc- we're horrified by the act that could possibly be perpetrated against us- isn't that terrorism??
This is why when I read stories about Wesleyan- I feel terrorized myself. I can see this happening- it is one person assaulting the way we shape and form our lives and society- he terrorizes our whole society not just Wesleyan.
I was just reading about the gunman that is lose at Wesleyan. Even looking at these words as I type them I realize the impact that each has on the body who reads the. Gun-man: implying a trigger happy hulking male, Lose: outside of the controlled body, renegade from social norm and Foulcault's notion of control; he cannot be observed so he cannot be controlled. So few words can create such a horrifying picture- my heart truly goes out to the students aand community of Wesleyan.
I've been trying to look at things in contexts and relation to one another and it's so bizzare the impact and force one action can have, and how apathetic we can be towards events on a mass scale. This is not to discount the importance or horror of either of these- but we can read reports daily of the mass casualties to AIDS, in Darfur, or in Gaza- but for some reason when the numbers are that great I feel that we are horrified. I see this as distinct from terror. Terror seems to shake our core and be able to directly impact how we feel about ourselves- horror we can easily dismiss as not our problem. It's horrific, but somehow we can disassociate that from us. I'm curious to hear what other people thing the seperation is between horror and terror in events like these. When are we horrified but not terrorized etc- we're horrified by the act that could possibly be perpetrated against us- isn't that terrorism??
This is why when I read stories about Wesleyan- I feel terrorized myself. I can see this happening- it is one person assaulting the way we shape and form our lives and society- he terrorizes our whole society not just Wesleyan.
politics of gender in the politics of hate.
Every year all of my studies seem to wrap up into one topic- I think I've mentioned before how this year it seems to be rights and implications of citizenship- and one thing that I've been focusing a lot on is the usage of the female body in affecting mass sentiment and inspiring rage and patriotism. This was outlined by Zarkov in her book, but in researching another paper I was most struck by what Audrey (?) Chenoy wrote about in her article Politics of Gender in the Politics of Hate. She spoke about the usage of female purity and honor in the Hindu Islamic conflicts of India.
I pulled two main themes from the two works that I see as hugely important and understudied. In Zarkov, propoganda was used as a way to mirror the rights, autonomy and purity of the state with the way we feel about women. The 'Mother land' feeds and protects us, we are her 'Sons' etc. This creates an archetype for a pure woman that is seperate from the actual female body but represents all patriotism and nationalism (think lady liberty/statue of liberty etc). As these are all done in a male voice (male artists, cartoonists, orators and writers predominantly), the woman is silenced. So to be a woman speaking out against this- you can not be placed on the same pedestle as our 'Mother' land.
In Chenoy's article she speaks about the attacks on the female body and how that is used in political agendas. The idea of 'all of our women have been raped' or our 'need to protect our wives, daughter etc' has multiple effects. First it rallys an alpha male movement that dominates over female society. Second, in it's hypersexualizing women, it ostracizes all women that either have been attacked, or society cannot accept the purity of. The rape of the woman- penetration by a forgein body- also becomes used politically in terms of the 'mother land'- the mother is raped by penetration of foreign forces.
A lot of focus has been done on how this effects the nation etc. But not nearly as much focus is given to the experiences of women. I feel that these tactics effectively silence all women who do not wish to threaten her rights of citizenship. In all types of conflict any sort of dissention is seen as not-patriotic, but the woman herself becomes dissent because she is not the same body as shown in propaganda. I never thought of this as an issue, but now that I am focusing on Palestinian women's movements, I see how this is a major unspoken obstacle that women who want to vocalize both their nationalism and dissent face during conflict.
I pulled two main themes from the two works that I see as hugely important and understudied. In Zarkov, propoganda was used as a way to mirror the rights, autonomy and purity of the state with the way we feel about women. The 'Mother land' feeds and protects us, we are her 'Sons' etc. This creates an archetype for a pure woman that is seperate from the actual female body but represents all patriotism and nationalism (think lady liberty/statue of liberty etc). As these are all done in a male voice (male artists, cartoonists, orators and writers predominantly), the woman is silenced. So to be a woman speaking out against this- you can not be placed on the same pedestle as our 'Mother' land.
In Chenoy's article she speaks about the attacks on the female body and how that is used in political agendas. The idea of 'all of our women have been raped' or our 'need to protect our wives, daughter etc' has multiple effects. First it rallys an alpha male movement that dominates over female society. Second, in it's hypersexualizing women, it ostracizes all women that either have been attacked, or society cannot accept the purity of. The rape of the woman- penetration by a forgein body- also becomes used politically in terms of the 'mother land'- the mother is raped by penetration of foreign forces.
A lot of focus has been done on how this effects the nation etc. But not nearly as much focus is given to the experiences of women. I feel that these tactics effectively silence all women who do not wish to threaten her rights of citizenship. In all types of conflict any sort of dissention is seen as not-patriotic, but the woman herself becomes dissent because she is not the same body as shown in propaganda. I never thought of this as an issue, but now that I am focusing on Palestinian women's movements, I see how this is a major unspoken obstacle that women who want to vocalize both their nationalism and dissent face during conflict.
Conspiracy Theory Rant
In class on Monday I started a rant about the connection of the 'swine flu pandemic' with the American political agenda- a rant that probably sounded slightly mccarthy-esque but I've been trying to flesh out a bit more. In the past few days I've tried to organize my ideas on this.
9-11 was a hugely formative moment for me. I was living in New York at the time and not only was that one morning a huge event in my life- but the reprocussions were as well. I've touched on this at different times during class, but collectively it has really shaped my experiences since then; and marked the first time I, independantly of class etc, realized how media and propaganda is a method to alter public opinion. Immediately after the attacks we were evacuated to two 'safe buildings', then finally released to join the hundreds who marched covered in debris back to their terrified families. Watching CNN when I got home was surreal- it's hard to see your backyard on national television. I was talking to to my dad on the phone about the attacks that afternoon and he started talking about 'Saddamn' etc. I stopped him midsentace and asked what he was talking about. I realized that he was responding to the image of an Arab man on TV- and given the context, tone of reporters and what was well known as the Bush agenda- he assumed it was Saddamn. When I corrected him his response was 'oh,well, whatever' and continued. The American media machine was able to take the image of one Arab man and demonize an entire section of our population, gather support for a completely seperate war, and terrorize the nation.
After the success of this, media has repeated the process any time we've needed popular support for a government plan of some sort. This might be pushing it- and I'm not saying that these events are fake or somehow created for some sort of 1984-esque control- but if we look at the way that we demonized China and the UK during SARS and Foot and Mouth disease respectively. In 2001 the Foot and Mouth disease hit the UK with avengence- and when America felt weak and wanted to rally ourselves- media portrayed the UK as decimated by this base disease- a tactic that was replayed in 2007. With SARS in 2003 American media effectively turned our entire society against any Asian neighbor- Chinatown in NYC was effectively quarentined and although there were only 8 confirmed cases - white masks were abundant. This was the same year that there was a large public outcry against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. We were effectively united against any group that was seen as 'alien' to America.
A little paranoid? Maybe. I'm also a little over worked, over caffinated and under paid at the moment. BUT- when our borders with Mexico become a huge issue- all of a sudden there's a pandemic virus coming out of Mexico- again turning us against our neighbors and making us live in fear. My concern now is-with this new fear of viruses etc who can we turn it against next? Accusing someone of bringing the virus to our shores is synonymous with accusing them of biological warfare. If there's anything that could strike fear into the hearts of many Americans, as well as shell casings into the barrels of many shotguns- it's throwing terms like 'war' and 'biological warfare around'. CNN wants to identify the terrorist threat- they're it.
9-11 was a hugely formative moment for me. I was living in New York at the time and not only was that one morning a huge event in my life- but the reprocussions were as well. I've touched on this at different times during class, but collectively it has really shaped my experiences since then; and marked the first time I, independantly of class etc, realized how media and propaganda is a method to alter public opinion. Immediately after the attacks we were evacuated to two 'safe buildings', then finally released to join the hundreds who marched covered in debris back to their terrified families. Watching CNN when I got home was surreal- it's hard to see your backyard on national television. I was talking to to my dad on the phone about the attacks that afternoon and he started talking about 'Saddamn' etc. I stopped him midsentace and asked what he was talking about. I realized that he was responding to the image of an Arab man on TV- and given the context, tone of reporters and what was well known as the Bush agenda- he assumed it was Saddamn. When I corrected him his response was 'oh,well, whatever' and continued. The American media machine was able to take the image of one Arab man and demonize an entire section of our population, gather support for a completely seperate war, and terrorize the nation.
After the success of this, media has repeated the process any time we've needed popular support for a government plan of some sort. This might be pushing it- and I'm not saying that these events are fake or somehow created for some sort of 1984-esque control- but if we look at the way that we demonized China and the UK during SARS and Foot and Mouth disease respectively. In 2001 the Foot and Mouth disease hit the UK with avengence- and when America felt weak and wanted to rally ourselves- media portrayed the UK as decimated by this base disease- a tactic that was replayed in 2007. With SARS in 2003 American media effectively turned our entire society against any Asian neighbor- Chinatown in NYC was effectively quarentined and although there were only 8 confirmed cases - white masks were abundant. This was the same year that there was a large public outcry against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. We were effectively united against any group that was seen as 'alien' to America.
A little paranoid? Maybe. I'm also a little over worked, over caffinated and under paid at the moment. BUT- when our borders with Mexico become a huge issue- all of a sudden there's a pandemic virus coming out of Mexico- again turning us against our neighbors and making us live in fear. My concern now is-with this new fear of viruses etc who can we turn it against next? Accusing someone of bringing the virus to our shores is synonymous with accusing them of biological warfare. If there's anything that could strike fear into the hearts of many Americans, as well as shell casings into the barrels of many shotguns- it's throwing terms like 'war' and 'biological warfare around'. CNN wants to identify the terrorist threat- they're it.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Response to Bridezilla
I agree with your attitude towards having a stripper at a bachelor party, as "no big deal," seeing how it has become a popular tradition involved with such events and even a phenomenon occurring at parties for the bride. The only objection I do have is, I would have to disagree with the symbolic reference of the stripper's body as a symbol of one's "freedom" being taken away. When we commit ourselves to someone else, we check our freedom at the door, the very moment we decide to be exclusive our bodies belong to each other sexually and to no one else. If anything, I think the stripper is a symbol of his strength and move towards commitment. Sitting in his chair, the bachelor is put to test, his mind should never associate the naked body in front of him with any sexual thought, as you had discussed. Though this may be to an extreme, and perhaps I am an idealist in love, I do believe in marriage as a full commitment and think the excuse that "men think with their dicks" is bullshit (excuse the language). Boys are the new girls, they are just as emotionally charged and possesive in a relationship as women. Anyhow, I also agree that she should not feel the need to outwardly assert such power over his actions and his body, as trust is the building block for any relationship. She should hopefully know by now, that his love for her is an omnipresent power over his body (thought process and action) that will keep him faithful for the rest of their lives together... hopefully =)
"Super-Thin Miss Universe Contestant Sparks Outrage"
Last month in Australia a 6 foot tall 19 year old woman weighing 108 lbs ran for Miss Universe. That gives her a BMI of 15.1 when normal weight is between 18.5-24.9!!!!!! No wonder her size brought scandal, and rightfully so! In the dancing and modeling world the smaller you are the higher up in that world you will be (or so its promised by teachers and coaches). In an account I had read in my Abnormal Psych book, one teacher told a ballerina that he wanted to be able to see each bone in her rib cage (Butcher, Mineka & Hooley, 245). Because of the demands of such occupations many women find themselves suffering from anorexia. In my grant proposal I discussed individuals overcoming obesity who place themselves through rigorous exercise that can be constituted as torture. Here, I wish to discuss the opposite of this notion.
Foucault discusses torture as 1- causing a certain amount of pain, 2- controlling in type, length, and intensity of pain, & 3- ritualizing the pain by either marking the body or by the spectacle that goes with it (33-34). Under these criteria the process anorexics place themselves through can be considered torture as well. Not eating can cause hunger pangs (1), the amount of food eaten as well as the time in between eating is heavily controlled (2), the small amounts of food eaten are taken care of in a very precise manner in a ritualistic way and the lack of sufficient nutients leaves numerous marks on the body with the most noticeable being emaciation (3).
Overall, it is a very serious disorder that highly affects the body which causes much physical torture as well as psychological torture.
- http://www.thatsfit.com/2009/04/24/super-thin-miss-universe-contestant-sparks-outrage/?icid=mainmaindl2link3http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thatsfit.com%2F2009%2F04%2F24%2Fsuper-thin-miss-universe-contestant-sparks-outrage%2F
- Foucault, Michel. Sheridan, Alan trans., “Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison”. New York: Random House, Inc., 1977.
- Abnormal Psychology: Core Concepts. Butcher, Mineka & Hooley. Pearson, 2008.
Foucault discusses torture as 1- causing a certain amount of pain, 2- controlling in type, length, and intensity of pain, & 3- ritualizing the pain by either marking the body or by the spectacle that goes with it (33-34). Under these criteria the process anorexics place themselves through can be considered torture as well. Not eating can cause hunger pangs (1), the amount of food eaten as well as the time in between eating is heavily controlled (2), the small amounts of food eaten are taken care of in a very precise manner in a ritualistic way and the lack of sufficient nutients leaves numerous marks on the body with the most noticeable being emaciation (3).
Overall, it is a very serious disorder that highly affects the body which causes much physical torture as well as psychological torture.
- http://www.thatsfit.com/2009/04/24/super-thin-miss-universe-contestant-sparks-outrage/?icid=mainmaindl2link3http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thatsfit.com%2F2009%2F04%2F24%2Fsuper-thin-miss-universe-contestant-sparks-outrage%2F
- Foucault, Michel. Sheridan, Alan trans., “Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison”. New York: Random House, Inc., 1977.
- Abnormal Psychology: Core Concepts. Butcher, Mineka & Hooley. Pearson, 2008.
Bridezilla?
My boyfriend's brother is getting married in July and my bf has been appointed the best man. According to wedding "laws" it is his job to plan out the bachelor party. Hanging up with his bro after discussing the plan and guest list for the party my bf receives a call from his close to crying sister-in-law-to-be. She tearfully requests that he not have a stripper at the party because she finds it disrespectful and it "grosses her out." After he hangs up with her me and his mother immediately tell him that he MUST have a stripper there now.. but that's besides the point.
Why is it that some women get so hot and bothered over their soon-to-be-husband watching a naked girl dance? Is it a trust issue? or is it just that maybe they do find it "icky"? Whatever the case maybe it is only a body; a dancing, naked body. Its presence at a bachelor party is only to represent that freedom that is being taken away from the man right? If you truly beleive that the man you are going to be marrying is the right person for you than the fact that he is going to be looking upon another body shouldn't be an issue. He is not allowed to touch the body in front of him plus he is going to be spending the rest of his life with you (if we beleive in traditional views of marriage... if not that's okay too).
If she feels the need to assert so much control over his sight, and thus over his body, I feel bad for that soon-to-be marriage.
Why is it that some women get so hot and bothered over their soon-to-be-husband watching a naked girl dance? Is it a trust issue? or is it just that maybe they do find it "icky"? Whatever the case maybe it is only a body; a dancing, naked body. Its presence at a bachelor party is only to represent that freedom that is being taken away from the man right? If you truly beleive that the man you are going to be marrying is the right person for you than the fact that he is going to be looking upon another body shouldn't be an issue. He is not allowed to touch the body in front of him plus he is going to be spending the rest of his life with you (if we beleive in traditional views of marriage... if not that's okay too).
If she feels the need to assert so much control over his sight, and thus over his body, I feel bad for that soon-to-be marriage.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Disciplinary Power and Racial Profiling
With the transition from the power of the sovereign to the power of discipline, many more people are able to take up power. No longer do we see a single all-powerful figure ruling over an undifferentiated mass. Instead, a series of micro level social relationships begin to be arranged around power, with power as the fluid currency of its members.
Although Foucault’s assertions are useful for thinking about the world, ultimately we must understand his scenarios as ideal typifications of social reality. We must understand that power structures are not part of an egalitarian form of social life. Power is something that some use, while others are at its mercy. Although we are not at the mercy of an all-powerful sovereign, access to power still tends to be concentrated in the hands of the few.
We may consider racial profiling as a phenomena, which endows some with power while simultaneously detracting from the capacity of others to hold power. The white cop becomes a figure with great power, while the black prisoner is stripped of his capacity to hold power. Although race exists as a social variable, rather than a biological classification, it has great weight for determining who has access to power and who is denied access.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Reaction to Swine Flu post
I find it strange how much scare tactics are being used in explaining the swine flu to our population, but what's even crazier is the amount of policing of the body politic on pharmaceuticals. I was watching "The Doctors" with my roommate last Thursday, and the doctors on the show were talking about the availability of medications to fight the swine flu. Apparently, there are medications available to doctors and hospitals that can act as vaccinations for the swine flu. However, they do cause a number of unpleasant side effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. The doctors on the show were discussing how, once people found out these medications were in existence, many people--scared by the media--rushed to their family doctors to acquire the medication as a precautionary measure. The doctors insisted it was not necessary, as hospitals would not run out of the medication, which is being produced in bulk now by pharmaceutical companies. The reaction to the media by the American public is extremely interesting, and almost predictable.
Social Evolution
In my primatology and human evolution class, we often talk of primate violence. Recently, a domesticated chimpanzee mauled a women nearly to death in the tri-state area. Chimpanzees have also been known to throw stones or feces as a violent behavior, as well as engage in cannibalism with their young. I believe that in some way this violent and pain causing behavior must relate to our own social evolution. Although behaviors are labile and varied, what can we infer from this example as well as other examples of violent primate behavior in comparison to our own behavior? Very interesting.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Imagery and Analogies of Swine Flu
Currently there is much to be said about Swine Flu and its status as a threat to the public health. Some individuals consider it as the next epidemic, something that may seriously injure or kill many people. Others consider it as media scare tactic, which is no more dangerous than the other varieties of the flu. Rather than discuss the merit of either of these claims, I would like to look to the imagery and the historical analogies, which each of these positions invoke.
The physical appearance of the Swine Flu is something will not create fear in the viewer. If we compare the image of Swine Flu under a microscope to the fangs of an angry Tiger, we feel something different. In the latter we feel anxiety and fear naturally, while the former is either disgusting or completely without affect. Thus, the image of Swine Flu is ineffective as a media tool. Instead, the media turns to the individuals that suffer from the Swine Flu as a referent, rather than the actual source of the pain. This concept is very similar to the manner that Elaine Scarry conceptualizes discussions of pain. She believes that pain cannot be directly referenced, and that it must be discussed indirectly: “the pain feels like ____”. Though I propose a similar viewpoint with reference to fear, I tend to consider the problem as something natural within the human. The human does not fear the image of Swine Flu because their natural instincts do not consider such a form as dangerous. Instead, the media must play on the empathy of the individual to evoke an actual fear.
Beyond the images that are used, we may consider the role of the historical analogy. The individuals that claim epidemic look to the flu as a repeat of 1918 (?), where many people died from a Swine Flu. The individuals that oppose this claim look to the Bird Flu scare of a few years ago, where there was a great build up of fear with little substantiation. The initial argument benefits from naming convention, as each are “Swine Flu”, while the latter argument is based on the temporal proximity of each. Both of the arguments however are related to the context and the opinion of the media/viewer irrespective of the actual facts about the Swine Flu.
The Disciplinary Power of School Computer Programs
When I graduated High school 3 years ago, Internet school programs were in their infancy. My grades were returned to me and it was generally up to me to transmit this knowledge to my parents (if one performed poorly, the teacher could access the parent directly by phone, but such was left to the discretion of the teacher and usually dependent upon a pattern of poor performance) Although many of our lessons called for us to go on the internet for information about a particular topic, the school was rarely the producer of such content; we were the consumers of another’s information, we were not the object of information. With the advent of “internet school programs” such as First Class, this relationship has changed somewhat.
The student is now both a consumer and an object. The student is no longer the sole recipient of their grades, as their parents may logon to this program and have access. This ability has allowed the parent to become an even more complete holder of knowledge of their child. We can consider this relationship in one of two ways, either as a direct action or as a response, both of which pertain to childhood as a distinct phase of life.
In the former, these programs represent an ever-present desire for parents to have control over their children. In this conception, the parent is looking to have their children under their absolute control as a means of molding them in whatever image they see fit. In the latter, these actions are a response to the growing independence of children. Here, the children have used technology as a means of breaking out of the subordinate phase of childhood, and parents are looking to re-impose the constraining power of this phase. In both cases the objective of these programs is the same: greater control. The question is whether the call for disciplinary power is being levied because of its insatiability, or because of threats to its persistence.
Enforcing the Body Politic
As I was driving out in the rain this morning I saw a cop who didn't have his lights on; the law is "wipers on, lights on." Cops also drive while talking on their cell phones. Is it so out of their budget to purchase headsets? & don't most phones these days come with head sets anyway?
Why is it that the individuals whose job it is to enforce the law do not follow the law? Schepher-Hughes and Lock refer to the body politic as "the regulation, surveillance, and control of bodies (individual and collective)" (pg. 7). As far as I'm aware, police are a part of the social body so why do they act as if they are above the 'control' just because they are the ones who are enforcing it? It is extremely unfair and quite appalling that "civilians" need to treat police with respect and obey their every word for fear of being arrested and thrown into jail. Even if we do respect them it might not do us any good and the outcome may still be the same (as Jailbird's & Masochistic Lion's posts in the beginning of the semester told us).
If one's individual body-self is a member of the social body then one should follow along with the laws set forth by the body politic and be held just as responsible in the case that they do not.
Why is it that the individuals whose job it is to enforce the law do not follow the law? Schepher-Hughes and Lock refer to the body politic as "the regulation, surveillance, and control of bodies (individual and collective)" (pg. 7). As far as I'm aware, police are a part of the social body so why do they act as if they are above the 'control' just because they are the ones who are enforcing it? It is extremely unfair and quite appalling that "civilians" need to treat police with respect and obey their every word for fear of being arrested and thrown into jail. Even if we do respect them it might not do us any good and the outcome may still be the same (as Jailbird's & Masochistic Lion's posts in the beginning of the semester told us).
If one's individual body-self is a member of the social body then one should follow along with the laws set forth by the body politic and be held just as responsible in the case that they do not.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Yoga and the Social Body
Once again surfing the internet and I typed in the search engine Social bodies, of course a load of books came up, then i saw "Yoga and the Social Body". I clicked on it and it was an abstract of someone researching the effects of yoga on the social body of a person.
Yoga is a mind and spirt practice that helps many (including myself) calm and relax their bodies and minds. It is a rejuvenating practice that demands a ton of concentration, while breathing and while focusing on moves. After you leave yoga, you feel like a new you. While feeling sore, you also get this feeling of calmness and serenity that takes over you mind. This abstract states, "The process of bodily knowledge becoming social forces is often neglected in the social sciences. This research is an attempt to begin filling that gap. I investigated the visceral process by which a yogic habitus is developed and lifestyle transformed. This paper explicates the mechanisms by which the emotional, intellectual, and social lives of yoga practitioners have been transformed from the body and how visceral memory traces became resources for agency in social life." After reading this abstract it got me thinking about my reactions and feelings after I do yoga. There is a transformation from the body there is an inner peace that is reached when you practice yoga (especially meditation and Vinyasa).
I know yoga can be a way of life for some people, and others it is a way to relax and cope with the real world. But what happens during yoga is a mind and body experience, it does transform your social body and you sometimes leave being a different person, and in society there is a more demand for stress relief, ways of coping, and ways of relieving anger.
It is a stretch that Yoga can be related to the social body, but it is interesting to think that in some way it does affect our social life and the way we live. Yoga and the social body might not go hand in hand but yoga and the body self sure does.
Break-in's... Mind Violation?
Last night my roommate and I were sitting in our living room trying to study amongst the rave-like noises outside our apartment on Easton Ave, which were of course the result of the Rutgersfest festivities. I was trying to work on my blogs as a matter of fact, struggling because I couldn't figure out what to write about for my last few. Around 11pm we heard a loud bang from downstairs and then a few seconds later another loud bang. It was enough to shake the house and my roommate and I both commented on how much we hate it when the drunks on the street bang on our front door, especially on nights like these. As I went back to writing my blog comforted by the fact that the banging seemed to have stopped, I noticed my roommate's bedroom door, which was located off of the kitchen, slowly open so that I considerable amount of light was shining through. I turned to her and asked her if she had noticed the door move and to my surprise she said something that quite frankly, scared the shit out of me. She told me that one of our other roommates was in her bedroom and had looked at her, very slowly put her finger to her lips as to say be quiet and slowly closed the door back.
Now this wouldn't necessarily be the scariest thing ever two things hadn't been true: first, we don't share bedrooms and therefore our other roommate who lived on another floor entirely would have no cause at all to be in that room and second, that other roommate in question I knew for a fact, had been in her room upstairs for the past few hours. I told the roommate I was with that she was wrong and that it was not our other roommate and after a split-second pause we both ran into my room, which is off of the living room locked the door and stood in the farthest corner near a window. We looked outside to see if and police officer's were outside stationed across the street where they usually are, and there were none, so we proceeded to call our landlord then the police. The police were in our house with in less than a minute of my phone call and called us out of my room to tell us it was safe. My other roommate who was up in her room came running down looking confused and the police officer nearest notified us that someone had kicked in our back door and inside door and gotten into my roommates bedroom.
However, that wasn't the freakiest part. When my roommate went to survey her room to see if anything had been stolen she was surprised to see nothing was missing, her ipod was still sitting on her bed as well as her wallet and many other valuables. Nothing had been moved our taken and all that was left as a result of our intruder was two busted doors. The cops (rookies not 5 years older than myself) immediately wrote the whole thing off as a drunk guy who had gotten lost and confused into thinking that it was his apartment and left. They wrote a quick report as our landlady hysterically tried to fix the doors and left as quick as they came.
So, this might have been the scariest few minutes of my life to date and I have to state a few things I noticed about it. The fear of not knowing what was happening, and knowing that I had no way to defend myself if the worst had happened or if my roommate wasn't with me, was the most torture I've ever been in that had absolutely nothing to do with physical pain, which makes me think of Scarry's classifications of torture. However after the torture subsided, the adrenaline that was rushing through my body made me feel more alive in the face of potential death than I have ever felt and for at least a few hours after, that I thought about how lucky I was that things didn't end worse than they did and that things that I've felt were important in my life for so long like school and a career mean nothing in death. All of these sensations were a direct result of my situation, the torture, which was caused by fear and then gave me liberation. I feel like this experience related to a lot of the discussions that we've had in class about the mind-body-pain link, all of which worked together to help me cope with a traumatic experience.
Of course, after my adrenaline died down I knew life still had to go on and I would still need to finish up the semester's coursework, which includes these blogs so I wrote one, this one...
(PS, the guy that did it is still at large and we don't think he was after money, he more likely had a more aggressive intent... and the investigation is ongoing.)
Now this wouldn't necessarily be the scariest thing ever two things hadn't been true: first, we don't share bedrooms and therefore our other roommate who lived on another floor entirely would have no cause at all to be in that room and second, that other roommate in question I knew for a fact, had been in her room upstairs for the past few hours. I told the roommate I was with that she was wrong and that it was not our other roommate and after a split-second pause we both ran into my room, which is off of the living room locked the door and stood in the farthest corner near a window. We looked outside to see if and police officer's were outside stationed across the street where they usually are, and there were none, so we proceeded to call our landlord then the police. The police were in our house with in less than a minute of my phone call and called us out of my room to tell us it was safe. My other roommate who was up in her room came running down looking confused and the police officer nearest notified us that someone had kicked in our back door and inside door and gotten into my roommates bedroom.
However, that wasn't the freakiest part. When my roommate went to survey her room to see if anything had been stolen she was surprised to see nothing was missing, her ipod was still sitting on her bed as well as her wallet and many other valuables. Nothing had been moved our taken and all that was left as a result of our intruder was two busted doors. The cops (rookies not 5 years older than myself) immediately wrote the whole thing off as a drunk guy who had gotten lost and confused into thinking that it was his apartment and left. They wrote a quick report as our landlady hysterically tried to fix the doors and left as quick as they came.
So, this might have been the scariest few minutes of my life to date and I have to state a few things I noticed about it. The fear of not knowing what was happening, and knowing that I had no way to defend myself if the worst had happened or if my roommate wasn't with me, was the most torture I've ever been in that had absolutely nothing to do with physical pain, which makes me think of Scarry's classifications of torture. However after the torture subsided, the adrenaline that was rushing through my body made me feel more alive in the face of potential death than I have ever felt and for at least a few hours after, that I thought about how lucky I was that things didn't end worse than they did and that things that I've felt were important in my life for so long like school and a career mean nothing in death. All of these sensations were a direct result of my situation, the torture, which was caused by fear and then gave me liberation. I feel like this experience related to a lot of the discussions that we've had in class about the mind-body-pain link, all of which worked together to help me cope with a traumatic experience.
Of course, after my adrenaline died down I knew life still had to go on and I would still need to finish up the semester's coursework, which includes these blogs so I wrote one, this one...
(PS, the guy that did it is still at large and we don't think he was after money, he more likely had a more aggressive intent... and the investigation is ongoing.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)