Hebdige and Established Identities

As Hebdige describes the dress code worn by a particular subculture as not necessarily representing attire worn as an absolute necessity dictated by abject poverty, but rather representing “relative poverty” with comparison to the dominant capitalist culture. With this considered their presentation of themselves represents a choice to disassociate themselves from this dominant culture. The concept of subculture thereby relate closely to the concept of class like it is described in Bordieu, not represented entirely in terms of economic status. There is a degree of choice and performance which goes into the establishment of identity that dictates one to be the member of subculture or social class, as both are social divisions.

This notion can be seen in John Lennon’s release of his single, “Working Class Hero,”in 1971. At this point he had finished his career with the Beatles, was by no means struggling financially or employed beyond his music career. Even though he was a multi-millionaire, hardly what most outside perspectives would label as “working class” and hardly leading a lifestyle that most working class individuals would relate to, his association with the working class is purposeful and shows that what it means to be working class is more than just an economic position but also a set of values that a person lives by.

This theme is frequently represented by musicians as they contend that although their musical success has led to financial upward mobility and career success, they remain connected to their former class, subculture, or cultural roots. They “remember where they came from.”

Another great example can be seen as Jennifer Lopez is eager to insist she is still loyal to her roots and same person she was before her success as she was growing up in the Bronx. She tells listeners, “I’m still, I’m still Jenny from the block / Used to have a little, now I have a lot / No matter where I go, I know where I came from.”

Feel free to post with more songs that you guys can think illustrate or expand on this element of subcultures and taste!

Butler and Shakespeare

Butler’s discussion of gender is centered around the assertion that gender is not in any way a predetermined state, but rather “an identity instituted through a stylized repetition of acts” (900), a product of one’s behavior.  She tells explain this behavioral element of gender through an analogy with the way identity is performed in the theatre, saying that “gender is an act which has been rehearsed, much as a script survives the particular actors who make use of it; but which requires individual actors in order to be actualized and reproduced as a reality once again” (906).

Her assertion recalls the performativity of gender as it is characterized by another important philosopher known for his representation of gender and “thinking about acting in a theatrical sense” (900), William Shakespeare. Not only were female roles in plays during Shakespeare’s time played by male actors, effectively performing the female gender for an audience, but the characters in Shakespeare’s plays frequently take on other gender roles as a part of their character, or take on disguises in which they perform other genders as part of their deception. Specifically looking closely at “The Merchant of Venice” and “The Taming of the Shrew” Shakespeare suggests again and again that performance is the chief way in which we convey gender.

Katherine’s strong willed character in “The Taming of the Shrew” depicts a woman who does not perform the traditional characteristics of femininity, and provokes much anger and insulting treatment from others. She is called a “shrew” and looked upon as a someone who needs to be tamed, simply for being independent, desiring agency over her own life, and lacking interest in getting married. These nontraditional traits show that not everyone belonging to a specific biological sex, desires to fit into the corresponding gender traits and the painful identity violence they undergo as a society wishes them to conform to such a role.

Portia’s character in the “Merchant of Venice” speaks especially to the performativity of gender. From the beginning of the play Portia is in many ways performing the role of a man. She is seen fully capable of managing her own finances and is called the “Lord” of her own estate long before her marriage with Bassanio. As she endeavors finally to actually disguise herself as a man to assist with Antonio’s problems, her role as an independent “man” with control over her own life, manifests itself in a physical sense as she desires to carry out a masculine role in a domain beyond her own home. While performing the role of a man she is able to resolve a situation that other men are not able to resolve in a male dominated realm of life. Shakespeare shows through Portia that there can be biological women who perform the gender role of a man more effectively than an individual who is a biological man, underlining the degree to which gender is centered within one’s performance.

Ladies, what are we going to do about this? –The Problem of Phallocentric Culture and Mixed Up Priorities

Irigaray’s thoughts in this essay are centered around the problem of how women intend to continue advancing their social status now that their inequality has been acknowledged and accepted as a societal problem on a large scale. She’s asking here, “Ladies, what are we going to about this?” Women have realized themselves as intelligent worthy people, not deserving of status below their male counterparts, but how do they now go about actively being a part of an entirely masculine system designed without the influence of women? Under the patriarchal understanding of gender divisions, a woman challenging the subordination which is expected of her is an action which is regarded as “masculine.” How then can a women embrace her feminine self while representing herself as a strong equal of her male counterparts? Irigaray suggests that system as it stands does not allow for such expression. Women do not have a way to express these desires in a system produced purely in the absence of female influence.

She contends that the “phallocratic economy” borne out of centuries of reigning patriarchal culture instructs members of society to fall in line in a system structured around a male conception of pleasure. Female desires for pleasure in this system are silenced, as they stand to threaten male pleasure. Patriarchal culture has constructed a society void of the language adequate to articulate feminine desire, as females becoming articulate self-realized individuals represents within society a threat to the male pleasure of viewing women in a more objectified manner. We can see this concept in action in Vertigo, where Scotty pushes his desires to be with Madeleine upon Judy who hopes to be accepted as herself. He is forceful in his wishes, to the point of audaciously dressing her in clothes Madeleine would wear and pressuring her to dye her hair. Judy’s objections are not heard and she is unable to express her own desires against Scotty’s forceful character, and she passively accepts such terms as she wishes to be with Scotty. Judy’s female desire here has been restrained as it opposes Scotty’s masculine pleasure of viewing her and enjoying her in a certain light.

Prioritizing male pleasure is a feature of patriarchal culture that can be seen manifested in the common practice of older men marrying much younger trophy wives, whereas this a significantly less common scenario when the gender roles are reversed. Likewise, the extensive availability of biomedical men’s health products engineered for men’s pleasure, such as Viagra or Vacuum Pump devices to remedy erectile dysfunction which are regularly covered by insurance, openly prioritizes men’s health and pleasure. In contrast, female birth control being covered by insurance plans remains a contentious political topic, and the availability of health products designed to assist with female sexual pleasure in the event of a health issue are incredibly lacking in comparison to the array of comparable options available for men. These things are not coincidental, and are linked to the repression of female desire Irigaray is describing.

The Impact of the Signifiers Used in Language

In our class as we reviewed last Friday and opened a discussion mostly pertaining to Lacan, there was a lot of discussion about the role which language plays in our emotions and desires and the question of whether animals can have developed capacities for emotions without having the capacity to articulate that language. The Lacanian response to this question was primarily that language has significant hold over our emotions and that without language we would not have the ability to feel as we do. From the perspective of a student with some experience in linguistics I find this idea somewhat troublesome however.

There is much scientific evidence in the field of linguistics that would suggest otherwise. There are quite a few examples of humans who developed outside of exposure to language and after being introduced later in life to language and society, although they never were able to communicate like a typical native speaker, they achieved a communicative degree of success and were able to convey emotions and feeling. In fact in the case of Genie, an abused a 13 year old who was kept in such isolation that she did not learn to speak as a child, she struggled with the grammar of verbal speech, but excelled so well at expressing her emotions and desires through non-verbal communication that researchers eventually began teaching her sign language to aid in her expression (Curtiss 1975). Likewise we know from the introduction of American Sign Language to chimpanzees that although they do not typically use any form of language that when taught they are able to express feeling of happiness, anger, and sadness (Garner 1989). A much more casual example of the existence of emotions without language, could be seen in common sayings along the lines of, “I just can’t put it in to words.” Emotions can be notoriously challenging to express, and it would seem this suggests that the existence of emotions and desires does not rely upon words.

In fact, I feel it would be easier to argue that the signifiers which we use to articulate ideas much more closely impact our socialized logical associations as opposed to our more visceral and personal emotions. Such an idea is famously represented in Orwell’s 1984 as the government deletes words from the public’s vocabulary in order to stem certain actions and ideas. In a similar manner, it could be argued that the vocabulary which the speakers of a particular language have at their disposal has a considerable social and cultural impact on the corresponding society that relies upon that language. A fantastic example of this can be seen in our own discussion of Barthes, as we began by dissecting the differing nature of French sexual terminology, from our own. As see in French a very romantic array of sexual terms such as “jouissance” which dually refers to both bliss and orgasm, and we are called to note in our own language the way in which the vast majority of sexual words have strong connotations to either scientific terminology or uncleanliness. It is hard to ignore strong corresponding differences between English-speaking and French-speaking sexual culture; where French culture is more open about sexual themes and less inclined to assign sexual behavior the shameful stigma often given to it in English cultures. These being just a few examples of the social and logical impacts which the signifiers in our language might offer.

A First Reading of “Distinction”

As a Labor Studies student I was particularly intrigued by Bordieu’s commentary on social divisions, and the role that “distinction”  plays in determining one’s social stature. He describes the typical dialogue surrounding class divisions as being primarily “opposition between the dominant and the dominated,” and goes on to question where exactly these social and economic divisions exist. This unique question seems to suggest perhaps more of a continuum of social inequality as opposed to social categories as they are often conceived, which opens up a new perspective on the organization of society. In line with this reimagining of social divisions and the distribution of wealth, Bordieu continues to reshape commonly held perspectives on social class divisions with his view regarding his interpretation of “distinction.” In a reevaluation of what factors contribute to social categorization, he focuses in on “taste” as an important factor often overlooked in the examination of social class, taking a complex look at “cultural capital” or the tastes or preferances which one has that are suggestive of “class,” and the social implications associated with such distinctions. “Cultural capital” suggests an additional impediment to social mobility, not so concrete in the way that economic or discriminatory factors (such as race or gender) tend to be, but nonetheless an important force to recognize as it certainly prevents individuals from moving from one social sphere to another. This idea illuminates the intensely influential quality that taste plays in our lives, and asks us to consider what forces have led us to shape those tastes.