Fiske and Mulvey

Fiske puts Althusser’s theory of ISAs in terms that mirror Mulvey’s writings on the “male gaze.” Fiske points to media, and more specifically, news reporters as an example of ideologies at work, hailing viewers and identifying them as certain subjects. In his example, the news anchor and reporter both use language that forces viewers to identify as particular subjects – in other words – to identify with a particular view. In this case – the idea that the railroad unions are “threatening” the nation and are mainly to blame for the strike (1271-1272).  I connect this with Mulvey’s idea of how films assume a male audience, and in doing so, make all audience members male subjects, no matter their gender.  As Mulvey explores the elements of film, Fiske takes the same thinking and applies it to wider social structures. Fiske says that the ISAs “all perform similar ideological work” and hail subjects in ways that promote the patriarchy and capitalism (1270).

I am interested in questions of literature as an ISA and how an author plays into it. What ideological or cultural ideas often go unconsciously, on the part of the author, into novels? In other words, how are novels, or literature in general, addressing readers as subjects? This question is better when tailored to a particular text, but it is a question I want consider when reading in the future. A similar but more specific question just for discussion:  Is the “male gaze” at work in written texts? Is that even possible?

“Fiske says that “the norms used to define equality and fairness are those derived from the interests of the white, male, middle classes” (1270).  I think this is seen in the way that equality is talked about; it’s talked about as equality between white, male, middle class and every other race/class.

Yep. I Was Watching Tremors 2 and Thinking About the Male Gaze…

Who doesn’t love sci-fi B-movies about underground, man-eating worms?  And even better – who doesn’t love straight-to-video sequels of sci-fi B-movies about underground, man-eating worms!?  This weekend, I found myself watching Tremors 2:  Aftershocks on AMC amid what appeared to be a Tremors marathon.  If you’re not familiar with the movies, here’s the trailer for the one I’m talking about:

Yes, it’s ridiculous and over-the-top. But the series has developed somewhat of a cult following, and the first one actually received fairly good reviews from critics. The reason being that these movies harken back to the low budget, sci-fi B-movies of the 1950s. They embrace tropes and cliches and have no other purpose than to be monster movies. Considering this, I wasn’t surprised to see the “male gaze” at work in the film.

There’s a very interesting scene I’d like to point to. Earl (the male lead) and Kate (the female lead) are planning how to attack the monster worms.

At one point, Kate bends over to set something on the table, which gives Earl a view of Kate’s, shall we say, derriere…

Which results in this:

But hold fast! (Pun not intended.) This is quickly followed by Earl bending over, and….

“Boom!” I thought, “Tremors 2 undermines the male gaze by objectifying the male lead just like the female lead!”  But that’s not quite right – in fact, it does just the opposite.  This scene is supposed to be funny – and I’ll admit, I laughed.  When Earl gazes upon Kate, it’s not that funny.  The objectification of female characters is the norm – and as a movie that embraces traditions and tropes, it seems totally normal and “at home” in the movie. But when this is followed by Kate gazing upon Earl, it all of the sudden becomes a humorous scene. The movie is saying, “See!  Haha! It’s funny! A woman is checking out a man! LOLZ!”

The humor in this scene corresponds with Mulvey’s idea of the “male gaze” being the norm in classic Hollywood-type films.  The film reverses the “male gaze” to create humor – but in a way that doesn’t undermine it. The film totally buys into the “male gaze” and that is what makes this little role-reversal funny.  We could also add the little detail that Kate turns out to be a former Playboy model – and coincidentally, the one that Earl has had an obsession with for years.  And what do you know! They become a couple in the end! And all the men rejoice!

The Term “Linear” in Reference to Writing & Speech

I agree with Derrida’s questioning of the binary between speech and writing; however, I was thrown a little by the thinking used to get there – particularly the use of the term “linear.” Derrida points out that Saussure refers to speech as being linear. Johnson, paraphrasing Derrida, says that linear is a “spatial term more applicable to writing than speech” (344). And in class today, we discussed how there are no linear aspects of speech. I disagree.

As writing is linear in structure on a page or screen, speech is linear in time. I understand that I am expanding linear beyond the spatial, but I don’t think it is a stretch. To state the obvious – a recording of voice can be transcribed into writing and vice-versa. Words in speech are spoken in a particular order – only one word can be spoken at a time. (Though I suppose you could try speaking multiple words at once – but good luck! That’d be quite a talent!)

If we accept the idea that speech is linear on its own, then Saussure’s use of the word linear to describe speech does not show a reliance on writing. I don’t see how the use of the word linear is proof of an inability to understand speech without writing.

The thinking of Derrida is that because we have to rely on writing’s linear aspects as a way of understanding speech, the binary between the two is defunct. However, I tend to believe the binary is defunct because both are inherently linear on their own. They are both systems of language – systems of signifiers, where one is visual and the other is auditory. Language is linear. Therefore, both speech and writing are linear. I do not know a lot about neuroscience, but I believe language’s linearity has something to do with the way the human brain works – the way we process information.

Perhaps I am missing something or have missed the point – I’d be interested in hearing others’ opinions.

Communication, Expression, and The Art of Recklessness

At the beginning of this semester, I was coincidentally reading Dean Young’s poetics statement, The Art of Recklessness. He references Barthes quite a bit in an attempt to define poetry and what makes it pleasurable. The other day, Prof. Ingham was talking about language as communication (referring to Stein’s poetry) and it reminded me of a section in Young’s book. (I have to paraphrase, because I no longer have the book – it’s at the Monroe County Library if you are intrigued!) Young says that language is used for two purposes: communication and expression; it is the poet’s job to work between these two purposes.
For me, Stein’s “Tender Buttons” comes across as more expressive than communicative. But what exactly does it mean? It’s hard to really say. Coltrane wailing on the saxophone is really expressive – but what does it mean? Same goes for Jimi Hendrix bashing his guitar against the amplifier before setting it on fire – it’s all very expressive. I’m not saying these things are void of meaning – perhaps the opposite – they are full of meaning! But it is hard to put into words. It goes well with Barthes – “pleasure can be expressed in words, bliss cannot” (21).

So does that mean that pleasurable writing is more communicative than it is expressive – and that blissful writing is more expressive than it is communicative? I think adding “expression” and “communication” to our terminology in our discussions can help us better understand Barthes’s ideas. Or maybe it makes everything that much more confusing – and if so – you are welcome for the added bliss!

Social and Taste Hierarchies on the Internet

In his flowery, over-the-top, almost incoherently foggy and abstract essay (yes, I know; I am refusing what I have been refused!), Bourdieu writes about social constructs of judgment and taste. I honestly bumbled my way through it and got lost in his terribly long sentences; however, there were some things that jumped out at me. His idea of the body as a “memory-jogger” is interesting (244). He says that all of our gestures, phrases, and body language – no matter how subtle – are signs of our understood place in society; we act according to the “agreed upon” social constructs.

This was written in 1979. So let’s consider today’s internet/social media driven world and how that affects Bourdieu’s idea. As education, information, and social trends are now one click away and can disseminate so quickly, how does it affect the way we see and portray ourselves? Do you think technology has resulted in a more homogeneous social/taste hierarchy – or has it made larger gaps – or had no effect at all? And what about social media? How do we portray ourselves via Facebook, Twitter, etc. based on our assumed social standing? Does a digital space make it any different from “real life” interaction?