'Race,' Racism and Representation

In Nazi Germany, the concept of the superiority of the ‘Aryan race’ was created and became widely accepted among the population – and the race signified human perfection and purity. Anyone outside of the ‘Aryan race’ was considered to be inferior, and they were often regarded with hostility and distaste.  A number of physical traits were often considered to be the Aryan ideal, and these included: light skin, light hair, blue eyes, and tall height. But how, exactly, did this ‘race’ come to be? In Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction, John Storey writes that, “Whether or not they are made to signify, physical differences between human beings exist. But how they are made to signify is always a result of politics and power, rather than a question of biology” (172).

If we consider the ‘Aryan race’ from this perspective, we can reason that what the Aryan race’s image signified was not truly their biological superiority; rather, the ‘race’ was created in order to establish power and dominance over political opponents. By establishing the concept of a master race, those who fit into the Aryan standards were able to secure their power by ‘othering’ and oppressing those who did not fit into the Aryan standards. 

Additionally, John Storey writes that, “The work of cultural studies, like that of all reasonable intellectual traditions, is to intellectually, and by example, help to defeat racism, and so by doing, help to bring into being a world in which the term ‘race’ is little more than a long disused historical category, signifying in the contemporary nothing more than the human race (185). When we analyze the occurrence of racial stereotypes and racism, we realize that the term ‘race’ exists as a discourse that allows racism to occur. Though it was passed off as the ‘master race’, in reality, the concept of the ‘Aryan race’ is a mere construct – a set of guidelines established in order for Aryan supremacists to gain more power and to oppress any threat to this power.

Videogames, Avatars, and Identity (Waggoner)

In “Videogames, Avatars, and Identity,” Zach Waggoner explores the relationships between humans and the virtual realities that they engage in. The rising genre of “videogame” is – as Waggoner points out – beginning to surpass movies and television in favored form of entertainment, since they allow a person to represent themselves through an “avatar,” or virtual identity. Waggoner writes, “My relationship with my avatar seems more complicated than that. Exactly how I believe it is more complicated (for other videogamers as well as myself) and will take some explaining as videogame technologies offer users interactive and immersive experience that convey verisimilitude and beyond more with each passing year” (488).

This article seems closely linked to Bazerman’s genre theories, since Waggoner explores a particular genre (videogames), and explores the ways in which it organizes and shapes human activity, experience, and the meanings we create. Waggoner seems to be saying that it is possible for us to carry our virtual identities and experiences over into reality, and vice-versa. In addition, he stresses the role-playing aspect of certain video games, and how people often change their behavior in order to adapt to a certain situation, or to adhere to the norms that are expected of them. 

Waggoner’s article is engaging and interesting, and I found it to be a good example of genre analysis. Rather than viewing the subjects of “videogames” and “avatars” through a particular theoretical lens, Waggoner explores them from various angles in order to gather an enriched understanding the relationship between them and people. Also, Waggoner brings up some very cool ideas about reality. Prior to this, we have discussed “reality” and “fantasy,” but Waggoner explores the idea of “virtual reality” – which complicates the question of what is really ‘real?’

Queer Theory (Butler)

In “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” Judith Butler explores queer theory while deriving from it at the same time – pointing out the flaws in using labels that signify a person’s sexual orientation. Butler does not feel comfortable identifying herself as a lesbian because she believes that any label like this is an “instrument of regulatory regimes,” and can be oppressive. In her article, Butler writes that “lesbian sexuality can be understood to redeploy its ‘derivativeness’ in the service of displacing hegemonic heterosexual norms” (227). Because of this, Butler does not address the problems that lie in the oppression that non-heterosexuals face; but rather, she locates the problem in the binary framework of sexuality and pre-existing ideas of what is“normal” and what is “Other.”  

Judith Butler, in this article, seems to express similar ideas that Wallace and Green addressed in “Queer Rhetorical Theory,” especially the concept of “heteronormativity” (certain genders are considered “normal,” while some are considered “others”). While Marxist and Hegemony theorists (namely, Marx and Gramsci) would likely believe that this phenomenon is a result of class conflicts and the struggle for power, and the Psychoanalysis approach (Freud, Lacan, Zizek) would likely believe it is rooted in pleasure, Butler’s ideas seem to be based in Post-structuralism.  In order to change the heteronormativity and the problems it causes, we must deconstruct the system and stop subscribing to its framework and the meanings that it has.

Though this article was a little more complex than Wallace and Alexander’s, it offered a fresh new perspective on the topic of queer theory.  What I enjoyed most about Butler’s argument was her issue with labels and how they create problems because they encourage fabrication and imitation. Each label is volatile, and by tacking one onto yourself, you face the problem of being subjected to this label’s requirements – which can be contradictory and never ending, in addition to oppressive and alienating. Gender labels often create these problems, and Butler suggests the idea of deconstructing them as a solution.

Gender & Sexuality (Radway)

In her article, “Reading Reading the Romance,” Janice Radway seems to be conducting a genre analysis by analyzing and critiquing her own book – recognizing its strengths, weaknesses, and offering a more enriched view of the genre of romance novels. Radway highlights particular ways in which her book can function as a “kind of genre theory”:

1.       “it attempts to understand how the Smithton women’s social and material situation prepares them to find the act of reading attractive and even necessary” (206).

2.       ”through detailed questioning of the women about their own definition of romance and their criteria for distinguished between ideal and failed versions of the genre, the study attempts to characterize the struggle of the particular narrative the women have chosen to engage because they find it especially enjoyable”

3.       “attempts to explain how and why such a structured ‘story’ might be experienced as pleasurable by those women as a consequence of their socialization within a particular family unit” (employing the psychoanalytic lens)

What Radway concludes through this analysis is that, in order to understand the genre, the romance reader/writer’s own individual struggle must be considered (because those who engage in this genre “are themselves struggling with gender definitions and sexual politics on their own terms”). Because of this, Radway emphasizes support more than criticism, and she writes that we could potentially “activate the critical power that even now lies buried in the romance as one of the few widely shared womanly commentaries on the contradictions and costs of patriarchy” (212).

In order to offer differing perspectives and explanations on the cultural value/influences of the genre of romance novels, Radway incorporates multiple voices into her article. She explores the theories of Williams, Thompson, Hall, Marx, Freud, and various feminists/post feminists (notably McRobbie), and she analyzes the genre through their lenses – which offers an enriched perspective on romance novels.  

Though Radway’s article was interesting, it was also very difficult to comprehend in some instances. Because she is analyzing her own work, she is very present in the writing – almost too present. Though this relates to and emphasizes her idea of women’s individual struggle, it also creates a problem by overshadowing much of her analysis.

Wallace & Alexander

In their article “Queer Rhetorical Agency: Questioning Narratives of Heteronormativity,” Wallace and Alexander aim to present an enriched view of “the ways that heteronormativity infuses Western culture and at how we participate in social and cultural practices that maintain heteronormativity” (794). In order to see the effects/influences of “heteronormativity” has on our culture, we must first understand that it is an “invisible system of marginalization” that upholds certain gender traits as normal, while it “others” anything outside of what is upheld as the traditional sexual identity. By understanding the ways in which heteronormativity works, we can discover ways “to move beyond the narrow range of roles that dominant culture allots to LGBT people,” and can also help us to be “better informed about the operation of gender, race, class, religion/spirituality, age, physical and mental/emotional ability, and sexual identity in our culture” (815).

The idea of “identity” has been a reoccurring concept in the arguments of various cultural theorists. Though the ideas of Wallace and Alexander seem to build off of post-structuralism, they place a strong emphasis on the sexual identity. Psychoanalytic theories also placed a strong emphasis on the development of sexual identity; however, Wallace and Alexander would likely disagree with Freud’s theories because they argue that “heteronormativity” shapes sexual identity (therefore, sexual identity is shaped by the social conflict and the ideals of “dominant culture”).

Wallace and Alexander present a very interesting essay, which not only aims to inform readers, but also to encourage change and acceptance in our culture. Personally, I found their argument to be very well constructed, and – by exploring the concept of “heteronormativity” (what they are fighting against) – they are able to expose its flaws, and they also demonstrate the ways in which it is limiting to each individual and culture as a whole.

Gender & Sexuality

Chris Weedon’s “Feminism & The Principles of Poststructuralism” presents an inside look at the ideas of both poststructuralist and feminist theories, but main goal of the article is to understand the relationship between them and to focus on “producing a form of poststructuralism which can meet feminist needs” (321). In order to structure his argument, Weedon presents three main topics: language, subjectivity, and language as discourse. Language, as Weedon reasons, is where subjectivity is “constructed,” and it “offers us various discursive positions, including modes of femininity and masculinity” (324). Also according to Weedon, the term ‘Subjectivity’ refers to the “conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself and her ways of understanding her relation to the world” (325). Lastly, ‘language as discourse’ refers to the social structures organized through practices/institutions that are initially organized by “discursive fields” (aka competing ways of giving meaning/organizing our world).

The idea of a unified or fixed subjectivity arises often in cultural theory, and notably in Feminist Poststructuralism – which rejects this belief and instead holds that subjectivity is not stable. On one side, those who agree with unified/fixed subjectivity would likely include Arnold, Leavis, Williams, Althusser, Freud, Saussure, Levi-Strauss. On the other hand, those who would side with Feminist Poststructuralism and dismiss the idea of unified/fixed subjectivity might possibly include Bazerman,  Laclau and Mouffe, Barthes, Derrida, Foucault.

Weedon’s feminist take on poststructuralism seems to be an effective cultural lens, and it seems to contain less problems and defects than the theories that preceded it. Because it is a hybrid between two notable theories, it possesses the strengths of both arguments. Personally, I believe that this lens could be very efficient and helpful when analyzing culture – especially since it focuses on the concept of individual “subjectivity,” which I find to be very interesting.

Post-Structuralism

In his article, Signature Event Context, Jacques Derrida explores the word communication – providing lengthy examples and analysis as to why the “meaning” of communication is too volatile and complex to be defined; and, by doing this, he extends his argument to “meaning” itself and investigates how difference creates problems in the standard way of thinking about communication and the definitions of words. Derrida then goes on to explore systems of interpretation, and says that “a context is never absolutely determinable.” Additionally, he makes the argument that we will never get to the true “source” of writing/language because there is an absence, or delay. Because of this, we only have “traces,” and thus, we’ll never be 100% certain of the intended meaning.

Derrida seems as though he branches out in an entirely different direction than his predecessors in cultural theory; while others attempted to discover the order and structure of communication and culture, Derrida acknowledges that it is far too complex to ever truly understand. We will never get to the direct source of “truth,” and in order to understand, we can only follow traces.

Despite the complexity and difficulty of Derrida’s writing and arguments, he seems to have some very interesting theories that can function as effective tools to understand language and communication. Sources, tracing, mark, and absence are all cool concepts, and Derrida seems to be very original (especially since he makes up his own words). Though I have trouble understanding some aspects of his arguments, I think that (judging by his main ideas) post-structuralism is an effective lens of cultural analysis.

Group Response 2

The two sample blog readings – despite focusing on two completely different subjects – both share a common element: they function as a tool that analyzes culture and conveys ideas effectively to readers. The first blog, BitchMedia, states that its goal is to “provide and encourage an engaged, thoughtful feminist response to mainstream media and popular culture,” and the article “The Empowerment Cure: How Teen Sex-Ed Has Undergone a Brilliant and Rapid Revolution” explores the way in which the approach to sex education in schools is vastly changing – as a result of changing values and beliefs. The second blog article is a review of the movie The Conjuring, and it is posted on The Movie Blog – which explores values and beliefs by critiquing an important aspect of American popular culture: film.  

Both blogs explore culture; however, they explore different cultural phenomenon through two different cultural lenses. The first article seems to take a Post-Marxism approach, and seems to take into account the theories of Laclau and Mouffe. It looks at the issue of teen pregnancy within discourse in order to discover its constructed meaning. The “revolution” occurring is the change that comes when people stop subscribing to a particular value, which – in this case – is the traditional method of educating teens. The second blog article seems to take a psychoanalytic approach, and it takes into account the “subconscious” in order to explain why The Conjuring is very frightening to us in some sections, but less frightening in others. 

By looking at the genre of the “Blog” in terms of these two articles, it is easy to see how blogs are a highly effective medium of cultural analysis. To readers, they are easy to digest through their casual, conversational, and engaging language. Also, they are versatile; despite being considered the same genre, these two blogs employed separate lenses and critiqued two completely different aspects of culture. Personally, I thoroughly enjoy reading blogs, and I think they are an excellent (and creative) way of communicating thoughts and ideas.