On Sociology, Gender, and Self

I consider myself a feminist. Many times, confusion arises about what feminist means. The negative connotation is a male-bashing, bra-burning, hairy-legged, violent female. I explain my own perspective as wanting equality for men and women. Yes, I can get fierce in my arguments, and sometimes sound like I hate men or think women are superior. I think anyone who feels a situation is unjust develops a certain amount of anger, and I have learned that a lot of times, especially in discussion, if I am trying to compromise and another is trying to win, I will always lose. I mention all of this to preface my point. As we read about oppression, I find myself relating it to the situation of women. When we read about dominant groups and discrimination against different races, whether these texts talk about gender or not, I connect the argument to oppression of women.

While the content of this class is not cheery, some of the concepts are cathartic for me. I am sometimes frustrated with how “female” I am. I realize that this is a bit of a contradiction to my feminist tendencies. If I believe women and men are equal, why do I feel that I should be less like a woman/ girl/ female? I am sometimes self-conscious when I cry feeling as though my tears are validating every stereotype about women. I have been called emotional (actually I get that a lot) and I either get angry… emotional… or I try to suppress things I would otherwise express. It’s hard to look at the “place of women,” wanting to be a living contradiction to everything awful that people say, all the while knowing that I only have one lifetime and there are too many variations for one person to embody. Oddly enough, I take some comfort from what Keith Osajima writes about internalized racism. He writes that “The desire to resemble the oppressor, to imitate and follow him implies a degree of self-dissatisfaction among the oppressed a belief that perhaps it is better to be like ‘them’ because who we are is not good enough, or smart enough, or beautiful enough.” (Osajima 140 emphasis added). As I read this I thought, wait, I think like that! Here, Osajima is not talking about the experiences of women, he is talking about the effects of racism on the oppressed. Despite his topic specific address, his argument applies to many different kinds of oppression. I myself make a connection to the oppression of women. I can relate to the internalization that Osajima addresses.

I find Osajima’s discussion comforting because it validates things that I have felt and thought. If you give his argument has weight, then entire cultures feel the same way. This means that I feel at times uncomfortable to associate too much with all that is feminine, not because I am weak or emotional or too much like my “fairer sex,” but because oppresion has this kind of effect. Dominant culture sends the message that men are ideal while women are weak, emotional, in need of protection, dependant, and the list of derogatory associations goes on. I am living in a culture that sends the message that who I am is not okay, is lesser, and that gets to me; that hurts all people.

Are You Down With G-O-D?

Saved is a 2004 film directed by Brian Dannelly, starring Jena Malone, Mandy Moore, Macaulay Culkin, and Patrick Fugit. The film follows a troupe of teenagers into the hallowed halls of American Eagle Christian High School. These less than typical teenagers run into all kinds of hypocrisy when one of their friends confesses he is gay, sparking a chain of incidents that are both humorous and critical of close minded reactions, especially within typical Christianity. Dealing with teen pregnancy, homosexuality, infidelity, physical disabilities, and religion with a sarcastic humor, Saved is not your everyday teen movie.

The purpose of the film is to criticize the hypocrisy, judgmental preaching, and closed mindedness that is often a characteristic of (American) Christianity. Saved accomplishes its goal for the most part. While it falls a little short toward the end with a “preachy” speech from Jena Malone’s character. Malone’s speech seems to do exactly what has been mocked throughout the film; preach. A friend of mine said that the end of the film “takes the easy way out.” Despite this valid criticism, the film is overall enjoyable and critical of presumptions.

While focus on the family says that “the filmmakers are far too busy taking vituperative pot shots at Christ and His followers to care much about creating constructive criticism,” I say that the film is hilarious and worth seeing, especially if you can handle a few jokes at the expense of Christianity. In my opinion much of the criticism is valid as well.

Crash and Burn?

Crash, directed by Paul Haggis, has a stellar cast and a gripping story line. The purpose of the film is to explore and criticize racial (not just black and white) interactions and misunderstandings within the United States. The film begins in the present and then follows the complex events leading up to that point and briefly beyond. Shots stay close up rarely letting the audience sit back and relax. The camera zooms close to the action and emotion, and stays there. Crash is not a film designed to make you comfortable. Pulling you into the sometimes violent, passionate, desperate, but always vivid emotions, the film urges you to examine your own prejudices while almost experiencing the prejudices taking place on screen.

As I mentioned, the emotion is high in this film and there I would argue is much of the films power. While the film is powerful, it is also a little contrived. The dense interrelation of characters, intense situations, and the way almost every character can be seen as both good and evil are extreme. I think the over-the-top element serves to make a point and is necessary for the spirit of the film, especially given the time constraint. However, the harsh reality of the issues discussed may strike some as sentimental because of the contrived elements of the plot.

Thinking of this film in light of cultivation theory, I would be curious what kind of reaction this film would elicit from a person determined to be unaffected by it. Overall, I think Crash is a film worth anyone’s time because of the issues it deals with, the performances given and finally because of its emotional pull, although sometimes despite it. The intensity makes the characters relatable and detestable in turn; in essence, human.

Who Tube?

Philo T. Farnsworth: the man the myth the legend. Wait a second who? Have I heard this legend? The truth is, no, you have probably not heard anything at all about this man. Why? It seems to me like another case of “the winners write the history.” RCA, having won patent battles, would not be likely to publicize Philo T. Farnsworth’s true role in the invention of the television. Why should they? It would be bad for business to draw attention to such a seedy underbelly.

In light of our sociology class, RCA was the dominant group due to sheer volume and economic reasons. A majority in the sense of numbers, RCA with its deep pockets and established status had the power over Farnsworth. As the “Domination and Subordination” reading states “a dominant group, inevitably, has the greatest influence in determining a culture’s overall outlook—its philosophy, morality, social theory, and even its science.” RCA meets the aforementioned criteria of dominant. The fact that Farnsworth remains little known is evidence of the power exercised. Class and economic status can cause discrimination as well as race, gender, etc. Not having the resources to go toe to toe with RCA, is an example of economic disability in the case of Farnsworth.

Prize Winning Fiction

Toni Morrison’s novel The Bluest Eye is beautifully written. This work of fiction is written for African American women. It speaks to particular issues and gets inside the lives of African American women. The novel tells the story of eleven year old Pecola Breedlove. However, by jumping between various points of view the novel gains a sense of the community rather than simply one girl’s tale. Pecola’s tragic story is supplemented with glimpses of other lives that flesh out the community in which she lives. The characters jump off the page with spice and texture. Morrison paints the picture of a living breathing town with tangible issues. There is not a two dimensional character amid these pages. The closeness of the subject to the author is evident within the text. Rich in language, color, and content, the novel is a triumph.

The use of color and imagery is particularly fascinating in this work. Some passages even have a distinct smell. The novel actively engages the senses. Packed with self-hatred and concepts of what it means to be black and the levels within that construct The Bluest Eye is powerful, thought provoking, and challenging.

Documentary?

From my cursory knowledge, a documentary is a nonfiction film often with a specific message. A documentary may have music, a narrator, or captions, but most often uses special effects sparingly if at all. In a documentary the camera is held level, with little cinematic flair, in order to “document” life and reality, or at least to lend that feel to the work.

The academy defines an award eligible documentary as “a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.” If we eliminate the theatrically released element this definition fits nicely with our class projects, most of the programs we have viewed for class, and other documentaries we have discussed. However the definition of documentary makes it all the more clear why 30 days was termed a “quasi-documentary” show. As with most reality television, the show seems to edit and manipulate the actual events often to alter the reality drastically. Because reality television is focused on ratings it fictionalizes the subject matter more that a documentary should.

The projects for this class should be held to a similar definition. We are aiming to create a true and accurate documentary. Our projects will highlight a true, rather than fictional, story. While there is a wide variety of elements that can be used in our documentaries, there is also a kind of balance that needs to be present. This balance consists of using technology (editing etcetera) without altering the truth. In the end, it is necessary to look at how the work is a complete project as well as how honest it is. Is the documentary well put together? Is it coherent? Is there a clear stance or message presented? Is this documentary true and fair to the participant? I believe these are the things that should be looked for in our projects.

Aliens: Not The Little Green Kind

Every form of media has a certain slant and 30 Days is no exception. In fact Morgan Spurlock’s quasi-documentary reality show 30 Days is arguably more biased than others. The premiere episode entitled appropriately “Immigration” is full of emotional pulls that push an agenda. Spurlock is known for this style of project having been the director and producer of Super Size Me, a film that examined and experimented U.S. fast food tendencies. 30 Days, like most reality television shows puts “ordinary people” in unusual positions. Frankly, the people in this show fit the purpose of pushing a sympathetic attitude toward illegal immigration and immigrants.

The viewer is first introduced to Frank, a Latino minuteman who patrols the U.S.-Mexico border and informs border patrol when illegal crossers are spotted. Frank is loud, somewhat offensive, extremely patriotic, and at least at first comes off as almost combatant. He believes firmly in his volunteer work as a minuteman (which began after the infamous attacks on September 11, 2001). After a brief introduction to Frank, he moves in for 30 days the Gonzales family. The Gonzales family consists of two parents and 5 children. While the two youngest children are legal aliens, the rest of the family is residing in the United States illegally.

The main conflict in the episode is the differing opinions on immigration. Frank disagrees with illegal immigration and is quite passionate in his arguments. The Gonzales family is for the allowance of immigration. Their daughter, Armida, seems the most articulate and passionate about the issue and sparks discussions with Frank on the issue. Frank and Armida go toe to toe in discussions, but seem to say the same things. Armida cannot understand why Frank is so unforgiving of illegal aliens.

The purpose of the episode seems to be to persuade its audience to be pro-immigration or at least more lenient in the area of illegal immigrants. The episode used particular devices in trying to get the “immigration sympathetic” response. There was a strategic use of music and shots of empty streets that added to the emotional pull of certain scenes. These flashes of poignant music and deserted lonely reality were consistently seen after a tearful moment or a moving discussion of Armida’s college dreams.

Another convenient aspect of the show was Frank’s personality in contrast with the Gonzales clan. He is a rather obnoxious guy while the family is inviting and easily liked. The comparable softness of the Gonzales family made them easier to relate to. In effect, Frank was easier to demonize because he often came off as harsh.

It was also a bit contrived when, in the early scenes, the family and Frank went out to a Mexican restaurant with Armida’s white male teacher. The dinner was to celebrate Armida’s scholastic achievement, but it digressed into a heated debate about illegal immigration between Frank and the teacher. This scene seemed to extend the cultural line and emphasize the (apparently) ironic stance of the attendees due to the cultural and racial backgrounds of each. The restaurant scene is a prime example of how the show plays with the pictures in your head in an effort to persuade. The ethnicity of the dinner party and its location were not coincidence.

It is interesting that the episode never really persuades for a specific policy, rather plays on an emotional response to the situation of illegal immigrants, the Gonzales family, and especially Armida’s college aspirations. A poster toward the end of the episode encompasses the argument made by the show. The poster simply reads: “no human being is illegal.” Frank brings this together by saying “there comes a time when you love people for who they are… all politics aside.” Ironically the show does not put politics aside, but makes it the focal point. Although there is not a specific policy stated in the episode, pushing the illegal immigrant issue is an obvious agenda, and is approached with an obvious slant.

While the episode attempted to emotionally pull the viewer to a certain view on the immigration issue, in the end I believe it failed. It failed because the same issue that is at work within the episode is at work in its audience. As Walter Lippman writes “the systems of stereotypes may be the core of our personal tradition, the defenses of our position in society.” The positions of Frank, Armida, and the audience members were ultimately preserved. Frank resumed his position as a minuteman, Armida continued her pursuit of education and her support of the immigration cause, and the audience went back to their lives. Who am I to say that no single viewer changed their mind or broadened their view, but in all likelihood individuals left with the same attitudes that came with.