Brittani Crawford
Response Paper:
Harry Potter vs. The Rules of Attraction
Throughout Bret Easton Ellis’ The Rules of Attraction, ideas of moral values (or lack thereof), obsession and lack of identity are ever present. Though the characters of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series are generally much more morally balanced, the main characters of the novels struggle with many similar difficulties in life. While the characters of The Rules of Attraction are raw and unadulterated in their lack of ethics and self responsibility, the characters of the Harry Potter novels seem to be drowning in an overflowing pool of responsibility that they have been attempting to stay afloat in all their lives.
Every character throughout The Rules of Attraction has a deep obsession, as does Harry Potter throughout the novels. Due to the fact that each of them live in a world of instant gratification and endless surplus, Ellis’ characters view others as disposable commodities rather than people, which makes it easier to objectify, obsess over, or move on from them as soon as they lose interest. On the contrary, Harry Potter has obsessed all his life over the loss of his parents and many other lost loved ones. However, this obsession is not caused by an excess, but rather by deep sadness and regret due to the lack of love and compassion he has suffered. Ellis’ characters bring to mind the film “10” by Blake Edwards. The main character of the film, George Webber, goes through a midlife crisis and eventually focuses his life on Jenny Hanley, a newlywed and apparently morally depraved young woman. Webber obsesses intensely over Jenny, only to end up realizing that she is not at all what he truly wants in a woman. As in the film “10”, Ellis’ characters slowly come to realize, to their own chagrin, that the objects of their obsession are not at all what they had imagined them to be. In any situation, objectification and deep obsession for others causes pain for all involved, and leads to naught but emptiness.
In the essay “The Second Sex”, by Simone de Beauvoire, the author poses the question “[w]hy is it that women do not dispute male sovereignty?...women are not a minority.” She goes on to say that women allow themselves to be objectified and subjugated because “the women’s effort has never been anything more than a symbolic agitation. They have gained only what men have been willing to grant; they have taken nothing, they have only received.” Through the entirety of Ellis’ work, women are objectified, and consumed, as commodities. They seem to be viewed as nothing more than objects of entertainment rather than people, but they allow themselves to be conquered throughout the novel. Similarly, in the Harry Potter novels, intelligent (but subservient) creatures called ‘house elves’ have been slaves to wizards for centuries. “Would Harry Potter like a cup of tea?” he squeaked loudly, over Winky’s sobs. “Er—year, okay,” said Harry. Instantly, about six house-elves came trotting up behind him, bearing a large silver tray laden with a teapot, cups for Harry, Ron, and Hermione, a milk jug, and a large plate of biscuits. “Good service!” Ron said, in an impressed voice. Hermione frowned at him, but the elves all looked delighted; they bowed very low and retreated.” (Page 377, Book 4, Rowling). As this quote emphasizes, they do nothing to gain respect or equality, but instead contribute to their own state of inequality by offering themselves so willingly to the oppressors of the story, similar to the females of Ellis’ novel. Though some female characters in The Rules of Attraction view the males in much the same way—as sexual objects—they still contribute to the lacking equality between the sexes, due to their inability to behave sensibly.
The characters of The Rules of Attraction build their lives and relationships on nothing but lies, or mendacity. As stated by the character ‘Big Daddy’ in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, “Think of all the lies I got to put up with!—Pretenses! Ain’t that mendacity? Having to pretend stuff you don’t think or feel or have any idea of?…I’ve lived with mendacity!—Why can’t you live with it? Hell, you got to live with it, there’s nothing else to live with except mendacity, is there?” (pages 110-111) Ellis portrays this constant deception through his writing style by showing how differently each character views the other characters—and how much differently they believe they are viewed by one another. These perceptions make up their realities, and they thrive on the constant deceit, the permanent emotional walls built up around them that never let anyone in, so that no one can ever really know anyone else. Similarly, the antagonistic characters of J.K. Rowling’s novels, such as Voldemort, Draco Malfoy and Rita Skeeter, are never truly honest with their closest friends or even themselves. They thrive through mendacity because they never have to get too close to another person, which allows them to use and abuse others for selfish pleasure.
A prominent theme in both Harry Potter and The Rules of Attraction is a lack of self identity. Harry Potter seems perpetually unsure of who he truly is, unsure of what will become of his life and whether or not he is truly good or evil. “Was this why Dumbledore would no longer meet Harry’s eyes? Did he expect to see Voldemort staring out of them, afraid, perhaps, that their vivid green might turn suddenly to scarlet, with catlike slits for pupils?...He felt dirty, contaminated, as though he were carrying some deadly germ, unworthy to sit on the underground train back from the hospital with innocent, clean people whose minds and bodies were free of the taint of Voldemort” (Page 492, Book 5, Rowling). Likewise, characters in “The Rules of Attraction” live their lives day to day, but not one has any true individual thoughts, values, or goals. They live the same lives as those around them, and seem to have no ambition other than to have sex and be constantly inebriated. Ellis’ writing style is meant to reflect the varying subjectivity of each character: each of them experiences themselves in a manner that does not coincide with how others experience them. As in Cultural Studies Theory & Practice, by Chris Barker, the characters of The Rules of Attraction conform to their social identity, ‘the expectations and opinions that others have’ of them. Contrasting sharply with the characters of Harry Potter (who have deep rooted beliefs and values, but worry over being wholesome enough to deserve companionship), the characters of Ellis’ work lack of ‘taste, beliefs, attitudes, and lifestyles, which leads the reader to conclude that they are devoid of any true identity.
To conclude, Ellis’ work, which reflect a society whose animalistic instincts are constantly met, who expect instant gratification on a daily basis, and a society where diplomacy seems to reign (though perverse instincts are secretly indulged behind the closed doors of each member of this quasi-perfect society), contrasts sharply with J.K. Rowling’s works that emphasize personal accountability, responsibility, companionship and moral values. Both works stress the importance of having an individual identity by emphasizing the flaws of characters that lack security in their knowledge of self. By contrasting with Rowling’s Harry Potter series, readers can easily see that Ellis’ work is a critique of human nature that can help us all to see that we are, sadly but inevitably, flawed.
Works Cited:
10. Dir. Blake Edwards. Prod. Tony Adams. Perf. Dudley Moore, Julie Andrews and Bo Derek. Warner Bros. Entertainment, 1979. DVD.
American Psycho. Dir. Mary Harron. By Bret Easton Ellis. Perf. Christian Bale. Columbia TriStar Egmont Film Distributors, 2000. DVD.
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. Minneapolis: Sage Publications Ltd, 2008. Print.
Beauvoir, Simone De. "The Second Sex." The Second Sex. New York: Vintage, 1989. Print.
Ellis, Bret Easton. The rules of attraction. New York: Vintage Contemporaries, 1998. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Book 2). New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 1998. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Book 7). New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 2007. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Book 4). New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 2000. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Book 6). New York, NY: Arthur A. Levine Books, 2005. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Book 5). New York, NY: Arthur A. Levine Books, 2003. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban (Book 3). New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 1999. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Book 1). New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 1997. Print.
Tennessee, Williams. Cat on a hot tin roof. New York: New Directions, 2004. Print.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Female Gender Construction through Harry Potter
Brittani Crawford
Honors English 313
Professor S. Wexler
December 10th, 2009
Female Gender Construction through Harry Potter
Throughout the entire Harry Potter series, author J.K. Rowling has worked to make her female characters simultaneously head strong and independent while also maintaining a strong sense of traditional values in each of them. I feel that this development of female characters has played a part in shaping our current culture by slightly altering the way we view, and adhere to, cultural and social gender construction.
In Judith Butler’s work “Imitation and Gender Insubordination”, Butler states that, “heterosexuality sets itself up as the original, the true, the authentic; the norm that determines the real implies that “being” lesbian is always a kind of miming, a vain effort to participate in the phantasmic plentitude of naturalized heterosexuality which will always only fail,” (Page 722, Butler). It is interesting to note that, throughout the Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling never once mentions a homosexual female couple. She has admitted in interviews that her character Albus Dumbledore was meant to be homosexual, though she didn’t feel that it was necessary to reveal his love life in the novels. I feel that J.K. Rowling personally accepted homosexuality enough to hint lightly at it in her novels, but didn’t feel that today’s society was ready for direct implications of anything other than heterosexual relationships. Therefore, playing into the culture of today, Rowling chose to adhere to the social norms of gender construction in her writing and skip over the more ‘radical’ concepts of relationships. In this way, I feel that J.K. Rowling’s novels have helped to maintain some traditional views of gender constructions in relationships.
In Barker’s work, Cultural Studies: Theory & Practice, he analyzes the position of a theorist, Giddens. Giddens holds that “[t]he individual attempts to construct a coherent identity narrative by which ‘the self forms a trajectory of development from the past to an anticipated future’. Thus, ‘Self-identity is not a distinctive trait, or even a collection of traits, possessed by the individual. It is the self as reflexively understood by the person in terms of her or his biography’…Identity is not something we have, nor an entity to which we can point…Identity is our creation.” (Page 217, Barker). Similar to this argument, J.K. Rowling creates characters, particularly female, with such depth that we, as readers, must accept that their past has influenced their current self. The reader must also take into account that future events will continue to shape these characters, and will affect their influence on the outcome of the series as a whole. For example, Ginny Weasley, a particularly independent female character in the Harry Potter series, became infatuated with Harry Potter from the first novel. Her infatuation turned to love for him as the novels wore on, and eventually Harry began to reciprocate her feelings. "I never really gave up on you. Not really. I always hoped ... Hermione told me to get on with life, maybe go out with some other people, relax a bit around you, because I never used to be able to talk if you were in the room, remember? And she thought you might take a bit more notice if I was a bit more - myself." (Ginny Weasley, Book 6, Rowling) Ginny’s ultimate significance in the novels was her ability to bravely and unyieldingly support Harry and his difficult decisions. “He chanced a glance at her. She was not tearful; that was one of the many wonderful things about Ginny, she was rarely weepy. He had sometimes thought that having six brothers must have toughened her up,” (Page 116, Book 7, Rowling). J.K. Rowling had to recognize that Harry Potter was an extremely complex and difficult character, and that his eventual partner would need to be strong enough to handle the intensity of him and his life. I believe that Rowling used Ginny’s past and personal attributes as a means to gain approval from her readers, to show them that Ginny was the most worthy companion of the great Harry Potter. Also, by constructing the strong, independent, intelligent, beautiful and mature character of Ginny, who ultimately ends up with Harry Potter, Rowling has reinforced the positive ideals that she feels should be culturally appreciated and repeated by the female gender.
Barker later argues the conception of women in the media. He talks about the stereotype of women, and how media has traditionally reduced women to possess ‘exaggerated, usually negative, character traits’. He also analyzes Diana Meehan’s theory concerning women on US television: “She suggested that representations on television cast ‘good’ women as submissive, sensitive and domesticated while ‘bad’ women are rebellious, independent and selfish,” (Page 307, Barker). Barker goes on to specify the various female stereotypes, listing that the ‘witch’ has extra power, but is subordinated to men. This description of the ‘witch’ in media stereotypes coincides completely with a very radical character from the Harry Potter series. Bellatrix Lestrange, a devious, merciless and ruthless witch, is the most devoted servant of the antagonist of the novels, Lord Voldemort. She is portrayed as a fearsome and powerful woman, though very subservient and reverent toward, and obsessed with, Voldemort. “Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy?” she yelled. She had abandoned her baby voice now. “You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain—to enjoy it—righteous anger won’t hurt me for long—I’ll show you how it is done, shall I? I’ll give you a lesson—” (Bellatrix Lestrange, Page 810, Book 5, Rowling) I feel that J.K. Rowling is attempting to persuade her readers away from this type of radicalism in the female gender. Bellatrix embodies every negative characteristic (callous and compassionless, yet very dependent on men) that can be assigned to radical women and Rowling attempts to steer away from this type of gender construction by emphasizing that Bellatrix is completely evil. Through this character, Rowling has affected, at least in a small way, the way that her readers view radical women in society.
Barker proceeds in his analyses of gender construction and society’s construction of self by talking about gendered space. “Gender is an organizing principle of social life thoroughly saturated with power relations. Thus, it follows that the social construction of space will be gendered. As Massey (1994) suggests, gender relations vary over space: spaces are symbolically gendered and some spaces are marked by the physical exclusion of particular sexes…Homes have been cast as the unpaid domain of mothers and children, connoting the secondary values of caring, love, tenderness and domesticity…Massey argues that: ‘The limitation of women’s mobility, in terms of both space and identity, has been in some cultural contexts a crucial means of subordination’ (Page 377, Barker). Throughout the Harry Potter series, the character of Molly Weasley, mother of seven children, homemaker and devoted wife, has always stood out in my mind as the most traditional female character. “There were hurried footsteps and Ron’s mother, Mrs. Weasley, emerged from a door at the far end of the hall. She was beaming in welcome as she hurried toward them, though Harry noticed that she was rather thinner and paler than she had been last time he had seen her. “Oh, Harry, it’s lovely to see you!” she whispered, pulling him into a rib-cracking hug before holding him at arm’s length and examining him critically. “You’re looking peaky; you need feeding up, but you’ll have to wait a bit for dinner, I’m afraid…” (Molly Weasley, Page 61, Book 5, Rowling). Molly is a very traditional mother figure, in her element when she is cooking huge dinners for her family, taking care of the house work and managing her children. However, her traditional demeanor strays from Massey’s view of women, as she holds great authority over the household and, at times, her husband. “That’s not the point!” raged Mr. Weasley. “You wait until I tell your mother—” “Tell me what?” said a voice behind them. Mrs. Weasley had just entered the kitchen. She was a short, plump woman with a very kind face, though her eyes were presently narrowed with suspicion. “Oh, hello, Harry, dear,” she said, spotting him and smiling. Then her eyes snapped back to her husband. “Tell me what, Arthur?” Mr. Weasley hesitated. Harry could tell that, however angry he was with Fred and George, he hadn’t really intended to tell Mrs. Weasley what had happened. There was a silence, while Mr. Weasley eyed his wife nervously,” (Molly and Arthur Weasley, Pages 53-54, Book 4, Rowling). Though Mrs. Weasley is the homemaker in the Weasley’s relationship, she is not the traditionally subordinate spouse. Her husband, Arthur, though he does have a strong sense of self and is strong-willed in the workplace, is rather intimidated by Molly at times. This gender reversal with such typical ‘motherly’ and ‘fatherly’ characters seems to be J.K. Rowling’s perception of current societal norms for household relationships. Though gendered space does apply to their relationship, Rowling doesn’t allow gender to subjugate or confine her female characters. In this way, I believe that J.K. Rowling is attempting to alter the traditional view of women in our culture by showing that, though they may adhere to some traditional values, their beliefs and actions are not limited by the conventional views that are generally assigned to these values.
In Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex: Woman as Other”, the idea is posed that femininity is a difficult attribute of females for our culture to understand, accept and hold on to. “All agree in recognizing the fact that females exist in the human species; today as always they make up about one half of humanity. And yet we are told that femininity is in danger; we are exhorted to be women, remain women, become women. It would appear, then, that every female human being is not necessarily a woman; to be so considered she must share in that mysterious and threatened reality known as femininity. Is this attribute something secreted by the ovaries? Or is it a Platonic essence, a product of the philosophic imagination? Is a rustling petticoat enough to bring it down to earth? Although some women try zealously to incarnate this essence, it is hardly patentable.” Due mainly to the fact that J.K. Rowling was not intent on introducing sexuality too early on in her novels, I feel that the young female characters of the series are ever struggling to simultaneously gain equality with the young men in their lives as well as to discover their own femininity and sense of womanhood. Hermione Granger, a girl of unparalleled intelligence and wit (though bossy and a bit of a know-it-all), is a character that always seemed to be trying to prove herself by being better than everyone else academically. Through this tiresome pursuit of superiority, the idea of her character’s feminine qualities seemed to be forgotten. “But Ron was staring at Hermione as though suddenly seeing her in a whole new light. “Hermione, Neville’s right—you are a girl…” “Oh well spotted,” she said acidly. “Well—you can come with one of us!” “No, I can’t,” snapped Hermione. “Oh come on,” he said impatiently, “we need partners, we’re going to look really stupid if we haven’t got any, everyone else has…” “I can’t come with you,” said Hermione, now blushing, “because I’m already going with someone.” “No, you’re not!” said Ron. “You just said that to get rid of Neville!” “Oh did I?” said Hermione, and her eyes flashed dangerously. “Just because it’s taken you three years to notice, Ron, doesn’t mean no one else has spotted I’m a girl!” (Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, Page 400, Book 4, Rowling). Up to the fourth novel, Hermione is considered a rather unattractive, somewhat awkward girl. Once she finally reaches a stage of recognizing that men are beginning to find her attractive, she starts to hone her sense of femininity, which only leads her to eventually realize that she is meant to be with Ron. Towards the end of the series, Hermione is an independent, intelligent woman that follows the tradition of falling in love, marrying and having children. Therefore, J.K. Rowling is, once again, shaping her female characters into women that she feels are positive influences on the cultural and social construction of the female gender.
Simone de Beauvoir goes on to state that she believes that the only way for women to gain respect and independence is to earn everything they have and need by themselves, with absolutely no aid or influence from men. “Some years ago a well-known woman writer refused to permit her portrait to appear in a series of photographs especially devoted to women writers; she wished to be counted among the men. But in order to gain this privilege she made use of her husband’s influence! Women who assert that they are men lay claim none the less to masculine consideration and respect…How can a human being in woman’s situation attain fulfillment? What roads are open to her? Which are blocked? How can independence be recovered in a state of dependency? What circumstances limit woman’s liberty and how can they be overcome? These are the fundamental questions on which I would fain throw some light. This means that I am interested in the fortunes of the individual as defined not in terms of happiness but in terms of liberty” (Simone de Beauvoir, Woman as Other). I feel that J.K. Rowling introduces her female characters as capable from the very beginning. Not one positive female character in the novels gives the impression that she is reliant on men and unable to achieve her goals on her own. ‘“Of course not,” said Hermione briskly. “How do you think you’d get to the Stone without us? I’d better go and look through my books, there might be something useful…” “But if we get caught, you two will be expelled, too.” “Not if I can help it,” said Hermione grimly. “[Professor] Flitwick told me in secret that I got a hundred and twelve percent on his exam. They’re not throwing me out after that.”’ (Hermione Granger and Harry Potter, Page 271, Book 1, Rowling). Hermione, as well as every other important female character in the series, is presented to the reader as a very powerful, intelligent, hard working and self assured woman. Rowling develops these female characters in a positive light so that they will be respected, revered and possibly emulated by generations of young women who read her novels. This positive development of female characteristics can constructively influence the female gender constructions that society adheres to.
Extremely important aspects of the Harry Potter series are the underlying romances of the novels. The manner in which our female characters ultimately find their soul mates and the different ways that they handle failed romances along their journeys help to shape them into women. The series’ underlying relationships can sometimes be compared to the romantic comedy genre. “A romantic comedy is a film which has as its central narrative motor a quest for love, which portrays this quest in a light-hearted way and almost always to a successful conclusion…Crying frequently occupies an important space in the narratives of the romantic comedy: as an index of the pain a lover feels when apart from the beloved, when rejected or lonely” (Pages 9-10, McDonald) As McDonald states, Rowling often writes of the unstable moments of the developing romances, to give the reader insight into the female characters’ emotions. “So why are you still here?” Harry asked Ron. “Search me,” said Ron. “Go home then,” said Harry. “Yeah, maybe I will!” shouted Ron…He turned to Hermione. “What are you doing? [Ron]” “What do you mean? [Hermione]” “are you staying, or what? [Ron]” “I…” She looked anguished. “Yes—yes, I’m staying. Ron, we said we’d go with Harry, we said we’d help—” “I get it. You choose him. [Ron]” “Ron, no—please—come back, come back!”…She was impeded by her own Shield Charm; by the time she had removed it he had already stormed into the night. Harry stood quite still and silent, listening to her sobbing and calling Ron’s name amongst the trees.” (Ron, Harry and Hermione, Pages 308-310, Book 7, Rowling). Harry Potter can be compared to a romantic comedy not only in plot structure, but also in some of its archetypal iconography. “We identify film genres by the kind of images found in them and, in turn, these images then become laden with a symbolism dependent on their genre: they become icons and their study within a genre dignified with the title of ‘iconography’” (Page 11, McDonald). McDonald then goes on to state that some of these icons include props, costume, settings and stock characters. Each of Rowling’s important female characters is developed by using stock characters in their romances, or partners that the reader knows to be ultimately unsuitable. Rowling uses these iconographic stock characters to further cultivate the emotional background of each significant character before they end up with the person that they were truly meant to be with. “She can’t complain,” [Ron] told Harry. “She snogged Krum. So she’s found out someone wants to snog me too. Well, it’s a fee country. I haven’t done anything wrong…I never promised Hermione anything,” Ron mumbled. “I mean, all right, I was going to go to Slughorn’s Christmas party with her, but she never said…just as friends….I’m a free agent….” (Ron Weasley, Page 304, Book 6, Rowling). Rowling deliberately portrays the important relationship of the novels as imperfect so that the reader can identify with the young lovers and realize that every relationship has flaws. By realistically depicting her characters’ love lives, J.K. Rowling begins to prepare her readers for the certainty of imperfections in love, which helps to shape the way our culture views romance and gender roles in successful relationships.
To conclude, J.K. Rowling (and most other authors or film makers) influence the manner in which we, as consumers, perceive and adhere to the social and cultural constructions of gender. “The ideology of a genre can both reflect and contest the anxieties, assumptions and desires of the specific time and specific agencies making the film.” (Page 13, McDonald). I feel that J.K. Rowling has succeeded in providing positive and influential female characters that are independent and forward-thinking, yet maintain a strong sense of traditional values. This development of female characters has had a positive role in shaping our current culture by slightly altering the way Harry Potter readers perceive and imitate cultural and social gender construction.
Works Cited
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. Minneapolis: Sage Publications Ltd, 2008. Print.
Beauvoir, Simone De. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage, 1989. Print.
Butler, Judith. "Imitation and Gender Insubordination." The Major Classical Social Theorists (Blackwell Companions to Sociology). By George Ritzer. Grand Rapids:
Blackwell Limited, 2003. 722-29. Print.
Derrida, Jacques. "Differance." The Major Classical Social Theorists (Blackwell Companions to Sociology). By George Ritzer. Grand Rapids: Blackwell Limited, 2003. 385-406. Print.
Foucault, Michel. "The History of Sexuality." The Major Classical Social Theorists (Blackwell Companions to Sociology). By George Ritzer. Grand Rapids: Blackwell Limited, 2003. 683-91. Print.
McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre (Short Cuts). New York: Wallflower, 2007. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Book 2). New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 1998. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Book 7). New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 2007. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Book 4). New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 2000. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Book 6). New York, NY: Arthur A. Levine Books, 2005. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Book 5). New York, NY: Arthur A. Levine Books, 2003. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban (Book 3). New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 1999. Print.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Book 1). New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 1997. Print.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Social Construction of Gendered Space
Brittani Crawford
HON ENG 313
The Social Construction of Gendered Space
While watching the “Speed dating” episode of Sex and the City, the main point of the short clip was obvious: men are not attracted to women who attempt to fit in to a typically masculine career. In this scene, Miranda is a thirty four year-old bridesmaid searching for a date to a wedding, so she desperately tries a speed dating event in New York City. She would find men interested in her, until she revealed that she was a lawyer, recently promoted to partner. They were uninterested in her power and ability to achieve such status on her own, and were rather turned off by her line of work, as it is a typically male career. Finally, Charlotte gives in to these social constructions and typical female stereotypes and lies about being a stewardess. Of course, the man she tells is instantly interested, and she is satiated in her hunger for male attention.
In Barker, Massey argues that ‘the social construction of space will be gendered’. Furthermore, Massey states that the ‘classical western gendering of space is manifested in the division between ‘home’ [female] and ‘workplace’ [male]. This suggests that women tend to be unwelcome in the workplace, as it has traditionally been a place of ‘toughness, hardness, comradeship and reality’ while a women’s place has inexorably been cemented in the home, ‘connoting the secondary values of caring, love, tenderness and domesticity’.
I feel that Miranda, in this scene particularly, is emphasizing the futility of attempting to gain male acceptance in a man’s space. Though the stereotypes are not necessarily as harsh nowadays, women continue to be less valued and respected in the business world, and are more accepted when following traditionally female roles. The fact that she submits to the gender classification and social construction of her sex by assuming a traditionally female role to gain gratification from males emphasizes, in a satirical manner, that females may not have progressed very far from our ‘gender space’ at all. These social classifications of ‘women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant’ still hold some sway over how we view women as a gender today. The simple truth is that we are not yet equal to men in the eyes of society, and works such as Sex and the City simply emphasize this.
Works Cited:
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. Minneapolis: Sage Publications Ltd, 2008. Print.
Sex and the City. Dir. Darren Star. Perf. Cynthia Nixon. HBO, 1998. DVD.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Rules of Attraction vs. American Psycho
Brittani Crawford
Hon.
Response Paper
Throughout the novel The Rules of Attraction and the film “American Psycho”, both by Bret Easton Ellis, ideas of objectification, obsession and lack of identity are ever present. Though the writing style is similar in both works, Ellis takes these concepts and throws them down two very different plotlines: the main character of “American Psycho”, Patrick Bateman, must put on a mask of having some semblance of self identity and sanity to please society, while in The Rules of Attraction every character is raw and unadulterated in their lack of ethics and self responsibility.
Every character throughout The Rules of Attraction has a deep obsession, as does Patrick Bateman in “American Psycho”. These characters view others as commodities rather than people, which makes it easier to objectify, obsess over, or move on from them as soon as they lose interest. This behavior brings to mind the film “10” by Blake Edwards. The main character of the film, George Webber, goes through a midlife crisis and eventually focuses his life on Jenny Hanley, a newlywed, and apparently morally depraved young woman. Webber obsesses intensely over Jenny, only to end up realizing that she is not at all what he truly wants in a woman. As in the film “10”, Ellis’ characters slowly come to realize, to their own chagrin, that the objects of their obsession are not at all what they had imagined them to be. This objectification and deep obsession with each other causes pain for all involved, and leads to naught but emptiness.
In the essay “The Second Sex”, by Simone de Beauvoire, the author poses the question “[w]hy is it that women do not dispute male sovereignty?...women are not a minority.” She goes on to say that women allow themselves to be objectified and subjugated because “the women’s effort has never been anything more than a symbolic agitation. They have gained only what men have been willing to grant; they have taken nothing, they have only received.” Through the entirety of both of Ellis’ works, women are objectified, and consumed, as commodities. They seem to be viewed as nothing more than objects of entertainment rather than people, but they allow themselves to be conquered throughout the novel. They do nothing to gain respect or equality, but instead contribute to their own state of inequality by offering themselves so willingly to the males of the stories. Though some female characters in The Rules of Attraction view the males in much the same way—as sexual objects—they still contribute to the lacking equality between the sexes, due to their inability to behave sensibly.
The characters of The Rules of Attraction, as well as Patrick Bateman, build their lives and relationships on nothing but lies, or mendacity. As stated by the character ‘Big Daddy’ in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, “Think of all the lies I got to put up with!—Pretenses! Ain’t that mendacity? Having to pretend stuff you don’t think or feel or have any idea of?…I’ve lived with mendacity!—Why can’t you live with it? Hell, you got to live with it, there’s nothing else to live with except mendacity, is there?” (pages 110-111) Ellis portrays this constant deception through his writing style by showing how differently each character views the other characters—and how much differently they believe they are viewed by one another. These perceptions make up their realities, and they thrive on the constant deceit, the permanent emotional walls built up around them that never let anyone in, so that no one can ever really know anyone else. They thrive through mendacity because they never have to get too close to another person, which allows them to use and abuse one another for selfish pleasure.
A prominent theme in both “American Psycho” and The Rules of Attraction is a lack of self identity. Patrick Bateman seems to be capable of no more emotion than rage and envy, and is only able to emulate the values and traits of those around him. He lives his life according to yuppie 80’s society, and is incapable of defining himself as a person. Likewise, characters in “The Rules of Attraction” live their lives day to day, but not one has any true individual thoughts, values, or goals. They live the same lives as those around them, and seem to have no ambition other than to have sex and be constantly inebriated. Ellis’ writing style is meant to reflect the varying subjectivity of each character: each of them experiences themselves in a manner that does not coincide with how others experience them. As in Cultural Studies Theory & Practice, by Chris Barker, the characters of both of these works conform to their social identity, ‘the expectations and opinions that others have’ of them. Furthermore, their lack of ‘taste, beliefs, attitudes, and lifestyles’ leads the reader to conclude that these characters are devoid of any true identity.
To conclude, Ellis’ works reflect one society whose animalistic instincts are constantly met, who expect instant gratification on a daily basis, and a society where diplomacy seems to reign, but perverse instincts are secretly indulged behind the closed doors of each member of this quasi-perfect society. Both works emphasize the importance of having an individual identity by emphasizing the flaws of characters that lack even a basic knowledge of self. Ellis’ work is a critique of human nature that should help us all to see that we are, sadly but inevitably, flawed.
Works Cited:
10. Dir. Blake Edwards. Prod. Tony Adams. Perf. Dudley Moore, Julie Andrews and Bo Derek. Warner Bros. Entertainment, 1979. DVD.
American Psycho. Dir. Mary Harron. By Bret
Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice.
Beauvoir, Simone De. "The Second Sex." The Second Sex.
Ellis, Bret Easton. The rules of attraction.
Tennessee, Williams. Cat on a hot tin roof.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Ethnography
Brittani Crawford
ENGL 313 HON
Popular Culture
September 12th, 2009
ENGL 313 HON
Popular Culture
September 12th, 2009
Ethnography
I sat at a Starbucks in the rich area of Valencia, people watching, while I waited for my work shift at Six Flags to near. The first interaction I noticed was between an older couple, male and female in their late fifties. The woman wore a tight jogging outfit and was still slender. The man wore flip-flops and loose clothing. The man and woman sat comfortably, but not intimately, close together, drinking coffee and talking. The man has brought his dog along, which is named “Albus” I noticed with a smile. He is gentle and attentive to his dog, and brought it water in a plastic bowl.
The second interaction was between two mothers, each with two children sitting next to them around a table. One mother is quiet and reserved, and her children are similar in behavior. The other mother is an animated speaker, and does most of the talking in this female friendship. The louder mother yells and threatens her children with punishment if they continue being uncooperative. She is embarrassed by them, and tries not to cause a scene. Her children ignore her and she, in turn, ignores them. The youngest child is content to occupy herself. The two older boys chatter endlessly together while the older girl stares off, neither participating in, nor listening to anyone else while she stares at her own reflection in the window.
A third interaction was between two male friends. They both came laden with laptops and text books. They choose a table outside, and one leaves to buy the coffee. They sit somewhat far from each other, but talk and laugh easily. They are obviously studying, and look to be of college age. Each buys their own coffee. They don’t seem intimate at all, except in a friendly way.
I briefly see a young mother, led by a hand holding her adventurous three year old. She shares her drink with her toddler, and is very content with spending time with him. She is patient and loving.
I see a family leave Starbucks. The father and mother are attempting to keep hyperactive children (a boy and girl, about five or six) close to them. The daughter is loud and playful with the other children she sees outside. Her father, embarrassed by his child’s innocent interest in others, apologizes to other parents for her behavior and attempts to load them into the car without further incident.
Watching all of these people carry on with their normal relationships was an eye opening experience. It became quite evident that, within any relationship, there must be one person that is the aggressor and one that is passive. This balance is not always distinct from the first moment, but it becomes clear as conversation and interaction between two people occurs. Further, in every relationship there was a struggle for power. Not only between males and females, but between a pair of the same sex, between parents and children, between man and dog. As Barker states: "Gender is an organizing principle of social life thoroughly saturated with power relations" (Pg. 377, Barker). Typically between the male and female relationships, the male was dominant and would be the one to go get coffee, or would ask the female to get napkins or a lid. Between the mothers and children, the mother would appear to be giving the child power over a situation (i.e. 'You can go buy another muffin for you and your sister, if you want to?'), though she was the one controlling the situation, in reality. Between same sex relationships with two men, they would each fend for themselves, which showed that neither would accept subjugation from the other, while in same sex relationships between two women, the more masculine or outspoken of the two would impose dominance over the other and buy the coffee for the two of them.
Between some parents and children, as much as a parent might attempt to hide the fact that they have no real control over their children, it is quite apparent. The child seems to know that a parent will not discipline them openly in public because they have shown weakness or embarrassment in a similar situation previously.
It was interesting to see that Tamar McDonald’s statement that, basically, money buys love appears to be true. The idea that the romantic comedy influences us in our daily lives and relationships is quite interesting: “…even now in the twenty-first century, women are still supposed to be more interested in gossip, relationships and clothes than important topics…the romantic comedy possibly encourages the men in the audience to remake themselves as fitter, more glamorous and possessing more and better consumer durables…the ideology with underpins [romantic comedy] seeks to sell love, and products, to everyone.” Pages 16-17, Romantic Comedy, McDonald). While watching the dynamics of the relationships of the people, it became evident that simple rituals, such as having coffee at Starbucks, seem to support this claim that money can buy love. We pay for coffee so that we can enjoy something common together. Coffee, in this situation, is the catalyst of conversation, and somewhat dictates the length of a conversation (I.e. you run out of coffee and the conversation tends to end soon after). While the two mothers were attempting to have a conversation together, their children continued to interrupt, so the louder mother ended up giving the child money to go buy pastries inside, which might give the children a distraction and make them happy.
As Barker notes in Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, "subjectivity and identity are contingent, culturally specific productions...identities are wholly social constructions and cannot 'exist' outside of cultural representations...personhood is inseparable from a network of kinship relations and social obligations" (Page 216, Barker). It seemed that some of the interactions of relationships that I witnessed were rather forced, perhaps out of habit or even social obligation rather than actual interest in the relationship. Perhaps, in the parts of society where there are no deeper worries than getting the car washed and taking the kids to soccer practice, the people of these relationships have the luxury of being fake and maintaining appearances, thereby improving their reputation as being a nice person. This reminds me of a moment in Ellis' The Rules of Attraction, where Victor goes to an REM concert and smiles at a girl with her boyfriend, who 'made a gagging look and turned back to the band'. Victor then comments, "And I got really disgusted and started thinking, what was this gir's problem? Why couldn't she have been nice and smiled back? Was she worrying about imminent war? Was she feeling real terror? Or inspiration? Or passion? That girl, like all the others, I had come to believe, was terminally numb. The Talking Heads record was scratched maybe or perhaps Dad hadn't sent the check yet. That was all this girl was worried about...Why did she have to act so fucking cool? And that's what it all came down to: cool: I wasn't being cynical about that bitch and her asshole boyfriend. I really believed that the extent of their pitiful problems didn't exceed too far from what I thought. They didn't have to worry about keeping warm or being fed or bombs or lasers or gunfire...but then I came to understand sitting there that these problems and the pain they felt were genuine...Other people might not sympathize with this couple's problems and maybe they didn't really matter in the larger realm of things--but they mattered to Jeff and Susie; these problems hurt them, these things stung...Now that's what struck me as really pathetic." (Pages 273-274, Ellis). As Ellis critiques in this passage of his novel, the superficial members of privileged societies tend to live in a world completely free from actual problems. Many of their relationships are built on nothing more than beneficial social connections, and no actual warmth and affection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
