Inevitable Provisionality

Today was a great class and I think the zines are awesome, but leaving class I started feeling a little down. The realization that this class is coming to an end hit me, and I started thinking about provisionality. While considering some things as provisional you jump for joy (the Bush administration comes to mind), others are quite the opposite. This class was a great place to put theory into play; a place to feel active and that you are making a difference, even if it is only toward fellow classmates (however, our feministeppin’ comments proved we reached further). What makes me feel a little better though is thinking that another class may perform the same assignments (or similar) and another provisional class will arise for a brief four months.

I think our theorists this year would be proud. Kipnis would have liked our refunctioning; Rhodes would have appreciated our use of online feminism; Fiske would have understood our popular selection; Benjamin would have loved our politicization of aesthetics. The list goes on and on. I think we achieved a lot in this class, if only for a short while. We were the first for many projects, hopefully not the last.

And there you have it, my final 320 blog. woot woot

Lesbian Chic

Kipnis tells us that potentially antagonistic subcultures are taken up by the dominant culture. During this process of appropriation the culture is refunctioned to serve the dominant culture. What was once seen as a threat becomes hegemonic and is no longer antagonistic. Also, no challenge comes about because the dominated class feels some sense of representation by not noticing the refunctioning. This “absorption and neutralisation” serves to maintain the social order. White also touches on this within television. She argues that shows portray many points of view, but then reframes them into one singular perspective.

Lesbian chic is a prime example. Lesbian and gay culture has been taken up by the mainstream to serve the heterosexual institution. Lesbian ‘style’ has been taken up by straight women to the point of rendering lesbians invisible; this can also be seen of gay culture by the ‘metrosexual’. This invisibility makes homosexuality easy to ignore, and heterosexuality easy to assume. Shows such as L Word, Queer as Folk and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy also use lesbian and gay culture to serve and entertain the heterosexual population. This trend has not been questioned because lesbians and gays are seen as being represented by this refunctioned culture and therefore everyone is happy.

Well, five minutes until L Word, I guess I will go watch it now.

The (pop) Culture of Zines

Let me start by saying “wow” to this weeks how-to on Zines; Lindsey put in a great amount of work and showed me (who thought she knew a bit about Zines) that there is a complex culture behind Zines. In addition to our feministeppin and this very blog, we are shown yet another way with which women can communicate and reach out to eachother. I think Rhodes would be very proud of this class. I think that the underground nature of Zines is what gives them much of their appeal. Flying under the radar of popular culture has power, I cannot help but wonder what may happen to the Zine ... (industry?) if it continues to pick up momentum and becomes more mainstream.

I believe that political Zines themselves, reguardless of the topic, reflect many of the themes we have looked at. From Fiske's ideas we see Popular Selection through choosing what typical megazine qualities we incorporate. From Kipnis we can note refunctioning the Zine performs. Zines take the megazine function of entertaining, absorbing and conforming the masses and refunctions it into something political that can enrage and mobilize the (albeit smaller) masses. One final example may utilize Benjamin's call for a politicization of aesthetics. These Zines take flashy, pretty megazines and, while maintaining a good, artistic image, politicize it and turn it into an in-your-face practice.

Oh My God... What Have You Done?

This week, with a pounding disconnected head after the midterm, I would like to connect Kipnis and White to feminism and women portrayed in the media. Kipnis argues that the dominated classes are kept down by the dominating class through the appropriation of the dominated culture. This culture is then refunctioned, transformed, and spit out as a not antagonistic watered down representation. This links to feminism and the feminist movement through the portrayal of “feminism” in commercials geared towards women. We often see commercial which incorporate feminist values or concepts previously used. You all know what I am thinking of; the pad commercial urging women not to let their period stop them, the tampon commercials compelling women that they can still be active even while on their rag, the allesse commercials telling women to be a unique individual and to chose their own life, the examples go on and on. This use of feminist discourse (choice, men as active, and women needing to fighting back) waters down feminism into ads for sponges and pills. Feminist goals are seen as achieved and feminists are supposed to be felt to be represented; the antagonism is lost.

Additionally, White explores the idea that shows introduce many perspectives, only to reframe them into one point – the dominant ideology. There is a reason I used the examples I did. Pads, tampons and birth control are all selling women’s reproductive cycle. Not only are women made into passive objects upon which their periods unfortunately happen; women’s major role is defined as reproduction. While using ‘feminist’ view points, women have been reduced to passive objects and feminism has been reduced to the fight for more absorbance.

Rich's Compulsory Heterosexuality and Popular Culture

This week I would like to point out how Arienne Rich’s concept of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ is sustained through popular culture; most specifically, through the state apparatus’ and the acceleration of images, as outlined by Althusser and Baudrillard. Compulsory heterosexuality outlines how individuals are forced to conform to and ‘desire’ heterosexuality. This sees heterosexuality as an institution, one that affects everyone. Trying to understand how individuals are convinced to assume they are heterosexual one can use Baudrillard’s concepts of acceleration and deceleration; on a daily basis individuals are bombarded with images of positive and ‘normal’ heterosexuality as well as negative and ‘abnormal’ homosexuality. These images are pushed on us at an increasing rate. We (the masses) then slow down, or decelerate, to a point of apathy or indifference in which we don not question such images and just absorb their message of compulsory heterosexuality. Therefore, image and media representation of heterosexuality is one way we are all forced into the institution of heterosexuality.

In addition to Baudrillard, Althusser is also useful in explaining compulsory heterosexuality. In order to be profitable, those who own the means of production must insure that the conditions of reproduction are reproduced. Althusser looked specifically at the reproduction of the necessary labour. In order to constantly have labour, there must be a next generation; heterosexuality is still believed to be the only form of reproduction, and it still is the major form of reproduction. So, to ensure profit, one must ensure heterosexuality. Compulsory heterosexuality is maintained through the state apparatus’; the repressive state apparatus uses laws (for example, no same-sex marriages, “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies etc) within the government, military and other areas of the repressive state apparatus. Also, less obvious, the ideological state apparatus demands conformity to heterosexuality. For example, the ideal nuclear family is the standard, schools teach opposite sexes, ‘proper’ reproduction, and our culture assumes individuals to be heterosexual unless otherwise proved, and tells jokes that make homosexuality abnormal and heterosexuality implied.

Nothing but Questions... Sigh.

I thought tonight’s class was very interesting and thought provoking, but very, very confusing as well. If dominant culture appropriates the dominated culture can we perhaps see some significance in this? Kipnis’ mention of “cracks” in the dominant ideology/culture makes me understand that the meaning and function may change but in some sense may still provide some representation of the dominated classes within hegemony. Also, is there meaning produced behind this appropriation that empowers the dominated, or does all meaning just collapse like Baudrillard suggest? Tonight I am just full of questions so here is another: if image and reality collapse and the meaning associated with it collapses, what is left; anything useful? What I am especially confused about is Kipnis’ concept of the conscious subject. The reasoning behind it that I see is that, because we respond to the “Hey you!” call and assume a subject position and are interpellated, we are all a conscious subject; but what is necessarily conscious about it? (I could very well just be in left field with this concept). I see more of a Marxist false consciousness when antagonistic discourse is taken up and changed to remove the antagonism.

A second thing I am unsure of is a connection I want to make between Baudrillard and Kipnis. I see Baudrillard’s concept of the slowing down of the masses into apathy and indifference as a possible cause of Kipnis’ claims of provisionality as actions and images are provisional because we ‘loose interest’ or become indifferent to them. I think Benjamin can also be brought into this with the idea of originals being reproducibility with Kipnis suggesting that the reproductions are also provisional. An example might be “reality” T.V.; the ‘original’ survivor (– there are no longer originals?) has been reproduced into other ‘reality’ shows (big brother, amazing race) all eventually loosing their appeal and becoming provisional. But maybe I am wrong, after all there has been seven seasons of big brother; does this make sense to anyone else?

Benjamin - A Man Before His TIme

There were two ideas in the Benjamin piece yesterday that really caught my attention, and can be seen today. The first was the concept of aestheticization of politics vs. politicization of aesthetics. I think that the aestheticization of politics can not only be seen in war time but is always around us; political campaigns, prime minister/presidential addresses, anything to do with politicians in the media thanks to their PR people; but also in other areas of political action, rally’s, for example, are packaged into one great drama story with either heroes or villains for their five minute news slot. So now the aim is to politicize aesthetics… how the hell does that happen? I fully understand and support our projects of feministeppin and zines; works of art with some political punch. My worry is how to move that to the big scale without aestheticizing our politicization of aesthetics. Maybe I’m just being a skeptic, but it seems to me that nothing can reach the masses without it being packaged to please, without it looking good no matter what political message it has to ‘ease up’ on.

The second idea I wanted further discussion on was the question posed before our break: does the reproducibility reduce the aura? It seemed to me that most of us had come to the conclusion of ‘no’ without much thought of how it just might. Yes some people still go to see the Mona Lisa, yes the Grand Canyon is still a main attraction, but there is still a large diminish on the respect and ‘aw’ we give to these works of art. Great pieces are always mocked in the media; the Simpsons with the statue of David for example. Another great example is from the wonderful Mr. Bean, in his movie he goes to see the Mona Lisa, sneezes on it, and destroys it; he then proceeds to ‘fix’ it, after trying to repaint it he gives up, goes to the gift shop, buys a poster, pours some chemical on it to look like it was painted and passes it off as the original. I think this says a lot about reproducibility, originality, authenticity and authority. How do we know what original is anymore; is there even such thing as original? Going back to the original question, I do believe reproducibility has reduced the aura, perhaps it has not erased it completely, and perhaps it never will, but we do not think of fine art they way we are told ‘they’ used to.

What the Hell is it all for?

I found this week’s lecture quite depressing for more than one reason. The idea of power structures, ideologies, and subjectivities cycling gives me a hopeless feeling of the impossibility of change. Hooks gives us some hope that out of the hopelessness of being oppressed comes the possibility of change. However, this to me is no consolation as it seems that when one group is able to rise out of their oppression another group inevitably takes their place; once again, it is cyclical. If this is the case is it morally right to strive for a better position for yourself or your group if you know someone else will be taking your place?

One hopes that there is some way to disrupt or abolish this pattern; does anyone have any idea what may begin this process? If we look back through history at groups that have broken through their oppression we may gain some insight. However, as was pointed out in class, hierarchy still continues and revolutions only produce new elites that are given positions above others. At this point, I am not sure if I can even imagine a time or place where anything is different. If this system can be taken down, what will take its place? Is this just a more grand form of a cycling of systems? I think I need to be reminded of the point and usefulness of fighting for what we believe in.

W ST 320 - White and Adorno & Horkheimer

I would like to begin this week’s blog by comparing the contradictory ideas within the White and Adorno and Horkheimer pieces; the contradiction being that White believes that ideology is unstable and always changing while Adorno and Horkheimer claim that it is always the same. While I believe both present strong arguments I personally prefer to believe White’s analysis. The thought that patterns are always repeating, just with different context, and are always the same is very depressing; while reading the Adorno and Horkheimer piece I was constantly asking “what can be done” without ever coming to a conclusion. On the other hand, White not only makes sense in her piece (I find it sensible to believe that everything goes through uneven development and that everything is made up of its past, present and future) but also gives hope for change. It is because of this hope that I will chose to lean more towards White’s position.

I would next like to focus specifically on White’s idea of tension in television with an example. I once saw a series of commercials for a car, I will not mention which car because, one, I do not want to provide free advertising and, two, I honestly do not remember. The commercials have a father and daughter waiting for the daughter to be picked up for a date of some sort, the father is depicted as traditional and generally disapproving and asks his daughter if she is in love, to which she responds yes. In each commercial of the series the date pulls up in the specific car and, without meeting the driver, the father approves and goes inside freeing his daughter to leave who then gets in and kisses the date who is either a biker, low life or a woman (there may have been more). Upon seeing the one with the woman I was initially thrilled to see some lesbian representation, so thrilled that if I had the money I probably would have supported that company by purchasing their car. However, while reading White’s article I thought back to the commercial and thought how it reinforces lesbianism (and the other versions) as deviant with the assumption that had they not have driven such a car it would have been considered inappropriate for the daughter to date them. This is the perfect example of such tension White discusses.

W ST 320 - Sept 14

So, my blog vision statement; here I go. I feel the purpose of this assignment as well as what Rhodes alludes to in her reflects my W ST 201 "Outrageous Act". Communication, literature and most forms of expression are restricted mostly to the male population. My Act involved writing letters to the significant women in my life in order to add some positive communication into our relationships. I feel that this is something done too little today.

What I see as usefull and meaningfull about women's writings are the ideas that are passed from woman to women, and the power that comes with that. Blogs and other online womens-centered pages can be a usefull tool into this as it reaches such a wide audience. With this we can influance the way women are positioned in society; even those that do not find anything wrong with society currently. This can be a powerful opportunity of change.

A website that looked to be aimed towards this is feministing