Polysemy, the Presidential Campaign, and Mormons

I have been following this year’s presidential campaign with more than my usual amount of interest because a member of my church (and a friend of my brother and sister-in-law) is running for office. You may have heard about him—his name is Mitt Romney. Romney has run into some unique challenges during his run(s) for office that directly affect me—more on this later. So, while preparing for our class this week, a quote from this week’s readings caught my attention: “It is as if a dozen candidates . . . are running for the Presidency of an undiscovered country, looking for connections, for a nerve to touch, seeking a language” (McGee, 1975, p. 245). This could have been written yesterday about the current presidential campaign. It is to the point that news articles talk about the “not-Romney” Republican candidate of the week, as the various candidates attempt to reframe their position as they go from state to state seeking votes.

The questions of “Who is my audience?” and “How will my audience interpret my message?” have never been more important—nor have they been harder to define—than in this campaign. Our country is experiencing hard times, and our country’s leadership helps to determine the direction we take to overcome those hard times. What (or whose) vision do we want to follow? As McGee elaborated,

Each political myth presupposes a “people” who can legislate reality with their collective belief. So long as “the people” believe basic myths, there is unity and collective identity. When there is no fundamental belief, one senses a crisis which can only be met with a new rhetoric, a new mythology. (p. 245)

We have several streams of rhetoric wandering through the current political landscape. While it is an easy journalistic shorthand to refer to them as conservative and liberal (or red and blue), the reality falls into a much more complicated mix of opinion. For instance, one candidate, Ron Paul, proposes less government. Most would consider this conservative. However, many in the radical feminist movement are equally supportive of less government, because they feel the hegemonic practices of government interfere with the ability of individuals to exercise their freedom. Less government could also mean no border patrol (liberal), smaller military (liberal), lower taxes (conservative), and potentially no Department of Education (antithetical). Thus, McGee’s point that competitive relationships exist within each individual is born out within a single candidate’s position. There is no collective identity here—there is a confused mass of interwoven ideals that lead from a single position.

How is an audience supposed to respond to this confusion? This leads me to our Condit (1989) reading on polysemy. Basically, proponents of polysemy argue that audiences have the ability “to shape their own readings” (p. 103) of text and media. While Condit granted that it is possible for individuals to talk back to and create their own frames for understanding the media, she proposed that it is much more accurate to define this process as polyvalent responses to any given message, because different life experiences—and in particular, socio-education levels—affect the ability of any given individual to create a different shape to the normative message. So, while different interpretations may be possible, the reality is a wide range of possible interpretations, with most of them following the general “expected” response. Thus, she argued,

If the particular range of television’s textual polysemy excludes marginal group messages, and if oppositional reading requires comparatively oppressive quantities of work, then minority groups are indeed silenced, even as audiences, and therefore discriminated against in important ways. (p. 110)

Extrapolating from Condit’s argument to the question of how an audience is supposed to respond to the political posturing of our current candidates means that audiences will respond as they are expected to respond, because the political rhetoric is too complicated for the average voter to sort through. Thus, if the media presents a candidate as two-faced, that is how the average voter will judge that candidate. If the media finds someone who accuses a candidate of some crime, even if the candidate is subsequently exonerated, the average voter will only have heard about the initial accusation, and made a decision based on the initial sound-bite.

This is huge for Mitt Romney because the media wants to make something big out of his religious beliefs. While he wants to focus on his experience and leadership, the media is bound and determined to ratchet the “weirdness” of his personal beliefs into the national consciousness. I doubt his campaign team has recognized how significant this is, given Condit’s analysis. In other words, the Romney team (and those associated with the Mormon Church) are being targeted and marginalized by the media, because most voters will not engage in the amount of study it would take to overcome the anti-Mormon message currently being promoted by popular media. It is subtle, but very persistent.

It comes as no surprise then, to me, to see that while the Church claims its “I’m a Mormon” campaign is a-political, the media blitz corresponds directly with the Romney campaign because the anti-Mormon message goes well beyond this candidate’s effort. It hits at every person who claims membership in the Church—which is where I come in. It doesn’t take much effort to transfer that “weird” belief that a presidential candidate holds to the person who lives next door who you know goes to the same church in the same way that it didn’t take much effort to transfer the actions of a few terrorists to the much larger (and much more peaceful) Muslim community. Thus, another segment of the population becomes marginalized unless some effort is made to counteract that marginalization process. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has indicated a preference to be called by its full name, it has come to terms with embracing the more common “Mormon” terminology in order to educate a nation being targeted with anti- messages. So, to adopt a note from the campaign, my name is Karen Marie Hansen Morgan, I am a mother, doctorate student, writer, business analyst, farmer, musician, and I am a Mormon. (If I am weird, it’s probably because I’m a farmer.)

How we disenfranchise members of our society is something we need to become more aware of in order to counteract this type of marginalizing rhetoric. Regardless of one’s political position, if this training in critical rhetoric is to have use in “the real world” we need to focus our attention on those instances where the message is divisive. Letting a message sender “get away with it” means we contribute to the problem, and not to the solution. Attending to the rhetoric in the current political campaign is a good place to start.

The New Face of Media

Bonnie J. Dow concludes part IV titled, “Gender and Communication in Mediated Contexts” of The Sage Handbook of Gender Communication, asking, “Why do journalists measure the progress of representations of women on television through a focus on the depiction of the lives of single white heterosexual career women? What does such a focus say about the race, class, and sexuality blinders that operate across mass media, whether in journalism or series television?” These questions struck a nerve and immediately I felt obligated to show some of the many television syndications that portray Black women as day-to-day successful businesswomen, thus overshadowing this notion that only white women can carry out this role in the media.

Donald Bogle’s book Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, and Bucks: An Interpretative History of Blacks in American Films discusses the roles often garnered by Black actors in films. These are roles that were unbecoming and only continued to perpetuate the harsh societal stereotypes of the Black culture. Bogle examines the roles of the Mammy, Jezebel, and Sapphire, typical roles portrayed by Black actresses. Over the years, these roles have continuously been featured in the media, limiting the opportunities for such actresses to play major leading roles.

Although we are still plagued by these “typical” Black characters, a new Black female character has arrived. She is the affluent, well-respected, and professional businesswoman. Yes, she still has traces of her predecessors with her sassy, sexy, no non-sense attitude, but that is what makes this character unique. In 1984, we were introduced to her as the character of Clair Huxtable played by Phylicia Rashad. On the popular sitcom The Cosby Show, Clair was the wife of Cliff Huxtable, a successful obstetrician, however Clair was just as successful in her role as a powerful and feared attorney.

Over the years this character has been widely recognized and endeared by many. For the first time, a Black woman was not just the homemaker caring for the family as the Mammy character did for her white family years ago. Clair Huxtable opened the door for more strong Black female characters in the media.

In the 1990’s, we met Khadijah James and Maxine “Max” Shaw, played by Queen Latifah and Erika Alexander on the show Living Single. Khadijah James was the editor and publisher of Flavor Magazine while Maxine was the quirky yet successful attorney. Once again society was introduced to strong Black women in great positions of power in their specific fields. From the 90’s to the 2000’s the roles of Black successful career women began to appear more.

In 2000, Girlfriends premiered, executive produced by Kelsey Grammar. This show featured four best friends juggling careers, families, and friendship. Joan Clayton was yet again the fearless and feared attorney, Toni Childs was the well off real estate agent, Maya Wilkes was the urban book author, and Lynn Searcy was the bohemian chic character having achieved five degrees with her hands in several career ventures. Never had we as media consumers ever been exposed to several Black female characters with prestigious careers. All three of the TV shows mentioned were widely acclaimed and popular lasting more than five seasons a piece and just a few of the many syndications that showcased strong Black successful female characters.

These characters help illustrate that the progression of women in the media cannot only be measured by the progress of single white heterosexual career women, but also by Black women and women in general. Although we are making strides and improvements, it may be some time before characters of the LGBTQI community are portrayed in successful roles besides the few exceptions of Modern Family and Grey’s Anatomy.

In discussing this flaw in journalists and media’s idea of the progress of representation in the media I hope that we do not continue to disregard the many advances that have been made by women in general in the media regardless of race, class, and sexuality. This post can best be summed up as Dow states, “lack of representation or negative representation in media was a form of discrimination that, if corrected, would lead to improvements in women’s lives off the screen and on the page” (p. 265). Seems to me it’s overdue that we shake things up for the betterment of women.

You Can't Handle the Truth!

This week’s reading of Dow’s “Introduction: The Rhetoric of Television, Criticism, and Theory” challenges the way that television is analyzed and opens the readers eyes to new opportunities when critiquing the media in general.  Dow states, “However, the motive for diversity in critical approaches should not be a search for the holy grail of truth but an exploration, with unavoidable twists and turns, toward the many, sometimes contradictory, possibilities of understanding.”  This is a statement that holds a lot of power. 

Critics often become so easily enraptured and consumed by the artifact that they are analyzing that sometimes an overall perspective is lost.  Many criticisms tend to have tunnel vision in the sense that they disregard other perspective or other issues that the particular criticism can uncover.  What Dow is challenging with her statement is for critics to open their eyes and to not take themselves so seriously.  There is no doubt that a traditional critical standpoint is valued in all aspects of the world of academia, however being staunch and static in research can limit one’s opportunities to discover new perspectives.  Dow is merely pointing out that sometimes our pursuit to discover the truth, we sometimes neglect other important factors in our research.  Finding the truth is important, but it should not always be the main focus so that it blinds us to other research opportunities.

Dow is hinting that a stagnant view of criticism can limit the impact it has on the audience.  She also wants us to consider how the research that is conducted will impact the audience, as well as the role that the audience plays in the research.  Dow believes that we should give the audience credit.  They are not mere passive viewers, but instead are often engaged in the media outlets which they are consuming.  There is no doubt that there are indeed passive viewers out there, however Dow is simply saying that scholars do themselves and the audience a disservice by over-generalizing and assuming that all consumers of television and media are passive.

Dow calls into question how scholars view the audience because it is reflective of the critics’ quest for seeking the ultimate truth.  If we are consumed with finding the truth, but only seek it from a certain perspective, than are we really going to find the capital “T” truth?  The question I bring to the table is who are we to determine what is true and what isn’t?  How are we to know each audience members frame of reference and past experiences?  What is true for us as scholars and as an audience will not necessarily be true for other audiences.  As scholars, we should not limit ourselves by assuming that the audience we are analyzing is in capable of understanding the mediated messages we are receiving.  Condit as quoted by Dow articulates it best by saying, “…The masses may not be cultural dupes, but they are not necessarily skilled rhetors.”

While we should not doubt the intelligence level of the audience being analyzed, we should also recognize that they are subject to and fall victim to the hegemonic messages that the media produces.  Dow states, “I question the quality or power of that resistance in the face of the repetitive and consistently reinforced hegemonic media messages that they consume.”  We should not assume that the audience is unaware of the power that the media has over them, however we would be naïve to believe that the constant exposure to these messages and ideas leaves no impact.

There are all things that we as scholars need to consider when conducting our research.  We need to recognize that it is important to find truth as it is defined to us, however we cannot become blinded by our own ambition and we cannot discredit our audience.  If we can handle our “truth,” so can they.

Reproduction ability: The root of all evil?

In Linda Alcoff’s article, “Cultural Feminism Versus Post Structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory,” Alcoff discusses the differing methodological and philosophical views held by Culture and Post Structuralist feminists. In her discussion of cultural feminism she mentions the views of Mary Daly who asserts that “male barrenness leads to parasitism on female energy” (p. 408). She goes on to say that since men cannot physically have children, they become dependent on women for reproduction. In turn, men become insecure and want to dominate the women in their lives.

Alcoff states, “The only real difference, the only difference that can change a person’s ontological placement on Daly’s dichotomous map, is sex difference. . . her definition is strongly linked to female biology” (p. 409). Thus, Daly (as cited by Alcoff) is saying that the biggest differences between men and women lie not in the construction of gender, but rather in the physical and biological anatomy of the two sexes.

So then does Daly not believe in gender at all? Or is she merely saying that it is not as important as sex? This particular discussion within cultural feminism reminds me of the article, “The Evolution of Gender and Communication Research,” by Dow & Wood that we read a few weeks ago which said, “Cultural feminism, the goal of which is to celebrate a distinctive women’s culture that reflects essentialist views of femininity” (p. 14). So then what makes up this “distinctive women’s culture”, or even more specifically, what makes up a “woman”? It seems that some cultural feminists, such as Daly, believe that men are more dominate and powerful in society simply because they are ‘overcompensating’ for their lack of reproductive ability. But what if a woman is not able to reproduce? Is she automatically equal to a man because the man no longer feels threatened by her?

 It is an interesting perspective that Daly takes within cultural feminism. However, I feel it is not possible to talk about male/female inequality without taking gender into account. I believe it is the replication of certain gendered actions, such as those discussed by Butler in “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution” that make a woman a woman and a man a man. Alcoff, who quotes another feminist, Rich, states, “The ancient, continuing envy, awe and dread of the male for the female capacity to create life has repeatedly taken the form of hatred for every other female aspect of creativity” (p. 410). To me, this means that the ability to reproduce, or the biological sex differences, create the basis for hatred which then carries over into everything that is ‘feminine’ or gender related.  The foundation of this need for control and patriarchical hierarchy among men has its foundations in the male’s lack of ability to reproduce.

Cultural feminism is an interesting perspective that Alcoff discusses in her article. However, it is the view point taken by Daly that really captured my attention as an interesting explanation into the creation of continuation of feminism.

Beauvoir Literature Review

De Beauvoir, S. (1972). Introduction. In H. M. Parshley (Trans.), The Second Sex. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm (Original work published 1949)

Summary:

In her introduction to The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir established her argument that women have traditionally been treated as other with a woman’s context existing only in relation to men. Thus, she claims, “humanity is male” and women is “not regarded as an autonomous being” (para. 6). She claimed that the category of other is “a fundamental category of human thought” (para. 7) that is juxtaposed against the self. In addition, Beauvoir argued, by creating a division between self and other humans justify treatment of those defined as other as less-worthy of a host of privileges. Hence non-natives are generally labeled ‘foreigners’ by those who are native to a country, and non-white races are often labeled ‘inferior’ by those who are white. Beauvoir also claimed that the notion of other turns that individual inessential; or “the object” (para. 9).

Beauvoir next argued that in most cases where the concept of other exists, people are often awakened to the realization that they, too, can be considered other by changes to their environment, such as moving to another country. Oftentimes the other is defined by virtue of a minority status. But women are not a minority—most statistics show them slightly exceeding men in total world population. Beauvoir noted that power inequities have often created other populations; however there have always been women. She claimed that throughout history women have always been subject to men, and that the bond of subjectivity was created by virtue of women’s biological differences from men.

Beauvoir explored the impact of women living in a world where men make and enforce the rules. She claimed that many of the accomplishments claimed by previous feminists were only those that men had been willing to grant, as a master grants his slave certain privileges, but the slave remains in slavery. Furthermore, she suggested that women have been unwilling to claim complete freedom for fear that they will lose the few privileges they have been afforded in the past. “Refusal to pose oneself as the Subject, unique and absolute, requires great self-denial” (para. 24).

Next Beauvior visited the arguments that are often posed as justification for either men or women to be viewed as superior, including the notion of creation (e.g., Adam was first, therefore Eve is secondary to him vis a vis Adam was a rough draft, and Eve was the culmination of God’s perfection in creation). She proposed that the conflict created by these arguments only adds to notions of superiority and inferiority, and we need to start over. However, she cautioned, a sex neutral individual would not have the understanding of the situation, and it is only women, who have experienced the state of womanhood, who can adequately speak for their state and status.

Finally, Beauvior argued that happiness is not the measurement by which we need to assess women’s place in the world. She posited that much of the world views the state of happiness as equivalent to rest. However, she stated, “every subject plays his part as such specifically through exploits or projects that serve as a mode of transcendence; he achieves liberty only through a continual reaching out towards other liberties” (para. 30). Rest is always accompanied by a “degradation of existence . . . and of liberty into constraint and contingence” (para 30). Thus, she stated, she is interested in the “fortunes of the individual as defined not in terms of happiness but in terms of liberty” (para 31). Only by understanding how biological, physiological, psychological, and economic forces have contributed to attempts to control women’s destiny can women “envisage the difficulties in their way, as endeavoring to make their escape from the sphere hitherto assigned to them, they aspire to full membership in the human race” (para 32).

Connections:

The concept of other has been explored by a number of philosophers. Buber (1927/1971) referred to this concept as I and Thou, where the creation of Thou occurs when the I individual views the partner in the relationship as subject rather than object. Otherwise, he described the individuals as I and It. Buber argued that when people view each other as I and Thou, they are able to build relationships with each other. He described the I and It view as merely experience, without engagement. Buber stated that when we view objects (or It) we engage in classification, counting, perceiving, subjugating, dissipating, perpetuating, or any number of actions on the object. Our sentence construction demonstrates this idea: I (subject) tossed the ball (object) away. It is only when we view another as subject or Thou that we engage with that person. Again, sentence construction demonstrates this idea: You and I (subject) discussed our ideas (object). We allow that person the freedom to act for him- or her- self, rather than expecting the person to behave in some manner we have created expectations of or for.

Beauvoir’s arguments echoed Buber’s writings from two decades earlier. In this case, Beauvoir has applied them to an entire group, rather than focusing on a single interpersonal relationship, as Buber did. These views are often placed in the existentialist camp of philosophy—a belief that the agency of humankind allows men and women to direct their own existence, and the quality of their lives will be driven by the choices they make, good or ill. Beauvoir clearly argued that women are not condemned by their biology to a specific destiny; rather women need to find their own path unrestricted by the views of men who classify them as other.

With her insistence that it is women who need to speak for women, and who need to work for their liberty, Beauvoir set the stage for what is now referred to as standpoint theory. Standpoint theory suggests that differences in perception (caused by different lived experiences) are necessary to understand and explain how an individual frames his or her way of knowing and acting. Standpoint theory tends to be critical of claims of objectivity and the scientific method when researching because researchers often do not recognize their own limitations due to unshared experience. Beauvoir’s argument that women need to do their own research laid a foundation for the second wave of feminism—of women who studied their own situation and made claims for their own direction. While many have criticized Beauvoir for her attempt to be inclusive—to create a world where men and women worked towards equality and liberty together—her emphasis that the woman’s voice was required in order to achieve that goal is solidly within the philosophical tradition of standpoint theory.

Finally, Beauvoir introduced the notion that one’s sex does not predestine one’s gender. While she denied the value of a neutral gender, she did object to the idea that one’s biological conformation predetermined how a person should live and act. Rather, she argued that women and men should have the ability to self-determine what characteristics they deemed important, and not some notion of femininity or masculinity. As people increasingly feel the need to understand how the concept of gender plays into their personal identity, we can look to Beauvoir for an initial reading of the difference between one’s biological sex, and one’s gender identity.

On a side note, I found an interesting connection to this concept in part of our scripture reading in church yesterday. The scripture exhorted a man’s sons (biological sex) to rise up and be men (gender identity) (2 Nephi 1:21; Book of Mormon). Our discussion revolved around what it meant to be men. We may believe that sex and gender are one and the same in the religious setting, but they are not.

Othering Within the Other

As I read “The Second Sex” by Simone de Beauvoir, I found myself having many revelations. As she opens this chapter, her tone is very condescending. I am initially not sure if she is making light of femininity or blatantly disregarding the notion. As I read on however, I find her stance and everything becomes clear.

Many concepts trigger emotions and experiences for me that began to make sense as I read on. The first concept was how Eve was created out of an unnecessary rib of Adam, thus making women as seemingly unnecessary or required. Next, the idea that woman is merely essential as a sexual object at the disposal of man. It is here woman becomes identified as the “Other”. Not a subject as man is, but as the “Other”, as an object, a piece of property. This idea presented hundreds of years ago is still evident for example in the media. It is very rare for a woman in a commercial to be shown as a complete image. Rather she is segmented in breasts, thighs, hips, ass and legs. Overly objectified in an instance to simply sell an item, another object coincidentally.

From there, de Beauvoir talks about the idea that marginalized groups such as Proletarians, Negroes, and Jews regarded themselves as “We”. On page 6/16 de Beauvoir states, “But women do not say “‘We’”, except at some congress of feminists or similar formal demonstrations; men say “‘women’”, and women use the same word referring to themselves. They do not authentically assume a subjectivity attitude.” This lack of coming together as an indomitable unit has continued to perpetuate the ignorance of the dominant group and divided women throughout.

Because women have never come together, we illustrate this identity of individuality. In turn we find ourselves internally othering one another. Now the “Other” is othering another. There are White women, Black women, Asian women, Spanish women, etc., but never just “We” or “Us”. By othering internally, women are able to gain some sense of supremacy. When a woman refers to another woman as a bitch, slut, or whore, she has othered that woman and in return feels some sense of power and is the dominant force. In my community and culture it is not unheard of for women to other one another. It almost becomes a competition of who has it better, when deep down we all are suffering from male dominated oppression and our actions only strengthen our oppressor.

It is not enough to blame men when women have become complacent in their role(s). Women may not be able to overthrow the dominant force as a whole any time soon, but what we can do is collectively come together as the out group and stop othering one another.