Language Style and Social Class Relations

I would like to elaborate on the effects that language has on social classes, in response to Andrei's post. When referring to different social classes, I think it is important that one must also examine the language style of individuals in order to better understand the social structure of society (Slang is also included under language style). I do agree that education does take part in our conscious effort to communicate; especially when placed in different settings or situations. However, I also do believe that everyone has the ability to recognize and apply language into in an appropriate manner when placed in these interactional situations. Maybe we are not fully conscious/aware of it, but I truly believe that we use different language forms to identify and categorize ourselves - as well as others - within society. This also supports Gramsci's theory of hegemony. Gramsci believes that, through the consent of the people, we contribute to the construction of social inequality. Therefore, through one's communicative competence, one understands (to some extent) the meaning of certain language styles and how they are applied to society. In addition, I think that to some degree we are also being cognitively deceived by others' perceptions of the world and by our own contribution - whether unconscious or not - to the social structure of society.

As a final note, I would have to agree with Professor Kalmar - "making the ordinary strange" does indeed create some confusion!

-Alicia

Cinema and the Black Square

I read an interesting article the other day about the movie theatre. In that article the author mentioned that there was a group of scientists who tried to invent a new technology to play the movie in brighter environment, so that people could watch movies outside the movie theatre under daylights. However, they failed. The reason? Simple, because no cinema wanted to buy that technology.

That article made me thinking that why people wants to watch the movie in the cinema in the first place. Are people actually going in for the story, or they just want to buy a chance to stay in the darkness, where they could laugh or cry without being seen by others; where they were surrounded by total strangers whom they don't care about and whom,they may never seen again for rest of their lives.

This situation reminded me the Black Square we saw in lecture. A simple black square, standing in the center of a white square board. Represents the real stays in darkness, surrounded by the white reality. Just like the movie theater-- a enclosed dark place under daylights. In the darkness there lies a place where people feel safe, and where people could communicate with “the real” which lies deeply in their heart.

Naturalization example in commercials

This commercial implies that it is human nature for "stuff" to belong to a person, and that other people should not take them away. By using the child as an example, it shows that the most basic people with little knowledge of culture - children - know that it is wrong to steal. The commercial plainly says "Even kids know it's wrong to take other people's stuff" to emphasize this. The commercial is effective because we don't really think about it aside from agreeing with it, which shows that the idea of having property and that taking it away is naturalized in our society. "It's just the right thing to do."

It's sort of similar to the dog's playing poker paintings... the paintings propagate the idea that it's in the primal instincts of men to have a good time away from their wives. Here the commercial follows the idea that since even kids know it's wrong to steal, then it's wrong to steal for all people.

There is a series of similar commercials on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl67TNDW-0Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qb0vquRcys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBGbef5p3g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKdIKP1arF0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1caAJ5CfU2g

CATFISH: when Reality meets the Real on Facebook

WARNING: THIS BLOG CONTAINS MOVIE SPOILERS!

After several of our class discussions on the Real vs. Reality, the movie CATFISH was really put into perspective. For those who haven’t seen the movie, the story addresses the dangers of online personalities and goes quite fittingly with idea of Facebook from the movie we had to watch for class. CATFISH is about a photographer in New York named Nev who becomes the subject of his brother’s “documentary” on long-distance relationships.

The story depicts Nev beginning an online relationship with Megan, the older sister of Abby, an 8 year old girl from rural Michigan who had sent Nev a painted reproduction of one of his photographs that had been published in a magazine. Via Facebook, Nev becomes friends with Megan’s entire network, including her mother Angela, her brothers and her close friends. Throughout this relationship Nev constantly exchanges love letters, pictures, and text messages with Megan.

The story begins to unfold when Megan sends Nev a song she claims she recorded for him which he later finds out was just a track she had stolen from YouTube. Nev then becomes suspicious with everything Megan and her mother Angela tell him and is persuaded by his brother to go and visit the family to get some answers. Upon arriving at the family’s house in Michigan, Nev immediately discovers that Megan does not exist. In fact, none of the personalities he had been introduced to online were real people. As it turns out, these online personalities, including Megan herself, were all created by Angela (who by the way looks nothing like the woman in the picture). Abby, Angela’s real life daughter, did not actually paint and it was Angela that had been sending Nev the paintings this whole time. To make her “family” more convincing, Angela even had two separate cellphones for when Nev called. When Nev called Megan’s designated cellphone, Angela would change her voice to sound softer and younger and talk to him for hours. After Nev confronts Angela about the truth, she goes on to explain that her Facebook world was her escape from her real life as a suburban housewife with two paraplegic sons. Although she is ashamed of what she had done, it seems to me that Angela did not regret her actions and was only ashamed because she got caught.


[Picture: (left) the face of Megan (right) the real Angela]

This story is an example of how one unfortunate man’s Reality becomes a victim of someone else’s attempt to submerge themself into the world of the Real. Angela Pierce was a woman who wanted to escape the realities of her life by creating a different life on Facebook. She stole pictures of a model online and posted them on her profile as Megan to convince others that this was what she looked like. Angela even went as far as to create friends for Megan, siblings of these friends, and gossip and rumours that Nev became privy to all while thinking it was real. According to the profile, Megan was a model, dancer, singer, actress, and photographer. This example of the Real was directed by Angela’s desires. Megan’s life was a life that was an impossibility for Angela; it was a life that she herself was unable to achieve in actuality so she decided to allow herself to achieve it in the realm of the Real via Facebook.

The collision of Angela’s Real and Nev’s Reality is a testament to how dangerous and scary the unknown of the Real can be and how it can, and always does, intrude into our everyday Reality. Here, the simple act of meeting someone through mainstream social networks like Facebook becomes dangerous and poses as a threat to the existence of the normative lives we live under in our own realities. Nev was a victim. For Nev, Megan was a reality; their relationship, their connection, and the feelings they had for each other had become a distinct part of his actual life. Maybe that is why people always say we should never believe everything we read online – including the personalities that we meet. This way we can preserve our Reality; we can keep the Real in check in order for us to avoid falling victim to its threat.

THE ORIGIN OF MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS

Based on last week lesson there was a mention of how the monogamous relationship care about, rather i think it was a question asked by the professor. I did not hear much people respond to that question so i decided to say my bit in the blog since i am very she and do not like to speak in class.
I learned sometime ago in a sociology of gender course in the university in my home country that the monogamous family had started back in the primitive day of barbarianism and savagery.It is said that the idea of family came about when men found out the they could domesticate animals to help with labor in the ages of hunters and gathers. with the domestication of these animals came unexpected wealth as they were producing surplus in there crops. This surplus gave them the need to secure and protect this newly acquired wealth as well as the need for larger work for to manned the animals as well as other aspect of cultivation. they therefore decide to organised the children and female into what is called a family today but back then women and children were just property the same way the animals were.
This idea brought about the Consanguine family. In this family all the male and female were husband and wife of each other. therefore all the children were brothers and sisters. The men still had concern about the security of the wealth and decided to make the family a little smaller by changing some of the rules ,such as prohibiting sexual intercourse with some family members. this down sizing formed the Punaluan family.
In the Punaluan family sexual intercourse was prohibited between parents and children and between brothers and sisters. because of this limit set by the barbarism the savages were not very comfortabe with the idea but the barbarian insisted as the became concern with who will inherit their wealth upon their passing. this was because inheritance were only done through the mother rights order. this was so as it could not be proven who were the father of the children but it was obvious who the mothers were. In the event of the death of the owner of a herd, his herd would be passed on to his brothers and sisters and to his sisters children or his mothers sisters. his own children would be disinherited. The Barbarian were more concerned with this idea as they did not want to leave their inheritance to the women because the women had children my many other fathers who would enjoy this inheritance. but rather wanted to come up with a way for only their children the inherit their wealth. out of this came the Pairing Family.
The pairing family is consisted of one man and one woman. this made the man's role in the family became more important than that of the women it also on the other hand created exploitation of women and the strengthening of the overthrow of mother rights other of inheritance. At this stage the men took command of the family, the home as well as the women and children. The women was degraded and reduced to servitude and became the slave of the mans lust. women were then seen as only an instrument of production of children, for larger work force.Hence the start of the patriarchal family. Therefore this idea of the origin of the monogamous family causes many to believe that monogamous relationship is a means of control which the men use to control and own women as property.

Sci Fi creatures in a social context

Earlier in the term we encountered the idea that science fiction monsters such as zombies represent the returned dead. The dead supposedly return when there has been a disruption of tradition.

Gail Collins from the New York Times recently put forward a new theory as to why zombies are suddenly so popular in pop culture. Her theory is that to liberals in the US zombies are a metaphor for Republican supporters, particularly those from the Tea Party. To her both zombies and Tea Party members are irrational, bloodthirsty, and are potentially infectious.

I would add to this that the very most paranoid conservatives in that country probably see it in reverse. A lot of the radical right wing rhetoric coming out of the US recently seems to describe conservatives as "every day men" who have been called upon to defend the fortress of traditional values from the roving masses of amoral liberals. Very Night of the Living Dead. To bring back the disruption of tradition metaphor, in Night of the Living Dead, a few rather socially repressed humans barricade themselves in a cottage as hoards of (liberal?) zombies slowly claw their way through.

Collins, G. (2010, November 19). The zombie jamboree. The New York Times. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20collins.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=zombies&st=cse

Marge Simpson joins the club...

In the last class, we discussed the concepts of embourgeoisment and debourgeoisment. As I thought about these two terms, an episode of The Simpson's quickly crossed my mind. There is no doubt that a majority of you have seen this, but I think it nicely displays an act of embourgeoisment. Nevertheless, in the episode, Marge Simpson meets and old friend at the gas station who invites her to join the Springfield Country Club. Of course Marge Simpson cannot turn her down, knowing how bubbly her personality is. Despite understanding that this club is predominately for upper middle class people, she decides to join. This gave her an opportunity to wear her $90 Chanel suit she had purchased at the discount fashion store prior to meeting her friend. But as Marge becomes aware, joining this club had completely changed her personality resulting in the neglect of her family. In the end she regrets joining and continues to live her ordinary life.

As one can see, Marge tried to become more like the upperclass, but in this case, she found it to be social stressful and destroying. This showed the process of embourgeoisment, whereby the working class takes on bourgeois culture.