 |
| Batman: The Theoretical Poster Child of Identity |
Answer
ONE of the following questions based on Chapter 8 of Culler's
Literary Theory, "Identity,
Identification, and the Subject" by Friday (though no class that day):
1.
On page 113, Culler writes that "Literature has long been blamed
for encouraging the young to see themselves as characters in novels
and to seek fulfilment in analogous ways : running away from home to
experience the life of the metropolis, espousing the values of heroes
and heroines in revolting against their elders," etc. What
modern work do you feel works in this way today and why? How do
people identify with the characters/situations in the book (or film)
and why might this be perceived as dangerous?
2.
From the perspective of Psychoanalysis, identity is not something
that can ever be original or achieved; on the contrary, "identity
is a failure...we do not happily become men or women...the
internalization of social norms...always encounters resistance and
ultimate does not work" (Culler, 114). Briefly discuss a work
(book, film show) where this seems to be the case: how does the work
explore some of the characters' difficulty in finding their identity
as men/women, children/adults, professionals, parents, etc.
3.
One of the great theoretical debates about group identity concerns
essentialism, which
states that there is something essential, or innate, to members of
that group. This would suggest that to be born American is to be
American; to be born black is to
be black; to be born
Italian is to eat Italian food.
However, many writers and theorists, notably Richard Rodriguez
(author of The Hunger of Memory,
Brown, etc.) claims
that race/ethnicity is a cultural choice and that he, though born to
Mexican parents, is more Chinese because he lives and identifies with
the Asian culture prevalent in San Francisco. What do you think
about the idea that you can 'choose' your identity in a cultural
sense? Can a 'white' kid become 'black'? Can an American become
Iranian? Can an Italian prefer Indian food to his 'own'? (and is
there a such thing as your food?)
3. I’m going to have to straddle the fence on this one. I do think there is something essential in us, a core bit that simple is ourselves- a mini me so to speak. I don’t think that that essential part makes us white, black, American, Chinese, tall, short or anything like that. I honestly don’t feel very American most of the time, but I still believe in my mini me. It’s like what I said in class about hating bananas. I truly despise them. I hate the smell, the taste, the texture, the shape, the peel, the color, I hate everything about bananas. I don’t even like that song where you have to spell it. If bananas were to go extinct I think the world might be a better place. My mini me hates bananas. If I had been born black, Chinese, Hawaiian, Portuguese, a midget, whatever- I would still hate bananas. I do think our culture affects us in a multitude of ways, but no culture on the planet would make me like bananas. And as a side note, if I could suddenly become Italian, I would. Like Mario Batali says “There are two kinds of people, Italians and people who wish they were Italians.
ReplyDeleteMacy: Ha...as an Italian-American, I can't relate to Mario Batali at all. I have very little interest in being Italian (besides the food), and in general can't relate to an identity tied up in ethnicity or nationality. But that might say more about my "essential" identity than anything else. As you say, there are qualities we all have which go against the dominant culture--"what? you don't drink beer? don't eat bananas? don't watch football?" Even in Oklahoma, there are people who are utterly indifferent about OU or OSU, even when the rest of their family goes nuts about them.
DeleteWhy would you want to be Italian, though? Is there something about the place that "shows" in the people? Or would you want to be Italian just to live there? I think we all have ideas about people and ethnicities that might be closer to ideals than realities, yet culture/literature offers us these models to emulate--and we often do. I know someone here in Ada who identifies strongly with both the Jewish and Italian cultures, though he is not ethnically either one, and more or less "acts" these identities daily. The question is, how do these identities solve the problem of finding a "self" for him, and can he ever truly "be" these cultures? Identity is a kind of failure in itself, but what if the identity we crave is learned second hand? Can it ever be authentic?
1. To me it seems that yes it can be quite dangerous for someone to get so wrapped up into a character in a book or even through media, such as television and movies in particular, nowadays. One work that shot out at me in this regard is J.D. Salinger's book called Catcher in the Rye. Though this book is now a good 60 to 70 years old, it might still hold a great influence over juveniles or younger people in general. The main character in the work, is a teen, and he soon begins to live a life full of debauchery and extravagance, such as getting into drugs, sleeping with numerous girls and women as well as falling into major depression throughout the book after he fails prep school and is a delinquent in general, having been thrown out of school previously and that it was three other schools to top it off. This book is often blamed in the Lennon case, when John Lennon was murdered and that his murderer was sitting on the stops after killing John in cold blood and had carried with him the book Catcher in the Rye. According to the case he was calmly reading it as the police pulled up in order to arrest him and later at his confession he admitted that the book was his sort of guide or that he identified with the teenager, Holden, in the book. This sort of screamed out at me that yes there are certain people in particular who can attach to a character so much that they see themselves as that character or relate to them so much to a degree. That is just one example and even movie characters can have someone emulate them to a degree or see them as their idol so much that they want to follow this character's example which to me seems like it can be dangerous but its not always bad to think of a character as a hero, but in those few cases it seems like it to me that it is.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn: Yes, the Lennon case is a great example of this--where literature created an identity that ultimately shattered an already 'failed' personality. Reading is also a question of interpretation, and the weaker the reader, the worse the message. Even the Bible can--and often is--misinterpreted to allow all kinds of murder and mayhem, and yet people form their identity based on these misreadings. We saw the same thing in the mid-80's when kids were killing themselves after supposedly listening to Ozzy Osbourne's song, "Suicide Solution." Did the song truly advocate kids to do themselves in...or were teenagers who felt they were failing culture's identity test reaching out to these songs, unable to truly read them as intended? Literature/art is subjective, so we can't guarantee that someone can get the "right" message--or a healthy message. We see what we see based on who we are at the moment. And once we close the book (or the song ends), we might be someone else quite different!
DeleteMy understanding is that the song "Suicide Solution" is referring to alcoholism (which is a prolonged type of suicide) not outright killing oneself.
Delete3) Jaime Lannister, a character from A Song of Ice and Fire, constantly has to endure a forced and negative identity known as the Kingslayer. His infamy stems from when he served in the Kingsguard for the Mad King - Aerys II Targaryen - and how he murdered the king he had sworn to protect in cold blood. Jaime comes off as very brash and cocky, partly because he is one of the best swordsmen in all of Westeros, partly because he is an ass, and partly due to the fact that the moniker bestowed upon him is not truly indicative of who he really is. He's constantly being insulted by anybody he runs into, and within the first 100 pages of A Game of Thrones, he is involved in two extremely shocking twists that paint him as scum of the earth. But as the series wears on, Jaime starts to change. It's revealed why he killed Aerys II Targaryen, and he steps from the shadows and becomes more than "Kingslayer." Personally, he is my favorite character in the series simply because he goes from being despicable to honorable, and the whole process feels very human and very natural. His balance between who people thinks he is and who he wants to be, and him shedding his old identity and growing into a new one is why he's one of the most well rounded characters of the whole series.
ReplyDeleteI meant 2)
DeleteCasey: excellent example from modern literature, which shows us that one of the most enduring themes of all is identity. Characters who change are indeed human, since we are not static; good people turn traitor in the right situation; bad people refuse to do bad deeds. It reminds me of a story (possibly a legend) from the Holocaust, where, during a purge of Jews in a certain neighborhood, the Nazi soldiers made all the Jews spit on the Torah. Despite protests everyone eventually did so, until it came to a local criminal with a bad reputation. He utterly refused, saying, "I've done a lot of terrible things in my life, but I can't possibly do something like that." A well-rounded character is usually one who has some measure of ambiguity; the character who always says the same things and acts the same way may be convincing and compelling, but he/she often comes across as a type more suited to allegory/romance than a 'real life.' So in this case, identity is indeed a failure, since we can never consistently be the bad or good guy; circumstances change, and so do we.
Delete1. As much as I don't want to use it, I'm going to have to use Twilight to prove my point, here. This series took off like wildfire due to the relatability(yes I made a new word) of the main character, Bella. Meyer creates Bella as an average teenage girl with nothing truly special about her, and then she places her with this overly sexy vampire guy who just can't seem to resist her. Every girls dream, right? WRONG. Bella runs away numerous times for the sake of her relationship with Edward--i.e. sexy vampire guy. Obviously it's a horrible idea to run away, and it's an even more horrible idea to run away for a boyfriend. Throughout the series, Edward is a threat to Bella's life (I mean, he IS a vampire who wants to murderlize her), and he is just an all around bad influence on her. He's controlling (he goes as far as to remove her car battery to keep her home), he's pushy, and he is someone I would NOT recommend for my daughter. When younger girls read the series, they look at the aspects of waiting to do the nasty until marriage as well as seeing how much Edward must truly "love" Bella. They normally don't realize how searching for a man like Edward could be detrimental to their relationships as well as a threat to their lives. Running away from home for love is also a big no-no in my book, yet Bella's father just seems more hurt than pissed off when Bella just takes off on these trips. Being a parent myself, I'd be beyond pissed if my kid hopped a plane to Italy. By making Bella average, it helps these teens relate to this character and askew their perception of fiction and reality, which is a scary thought.
ReplyDeleteJaime: excellent points here, some of which I respond to in Derek's post below. I like your parent's perspective here, though, since that's the issue here: how are they shaping--polluting?--our children? Do we want a book that allows love--and a specifically teenage love--to trump family and responsibility? The book suggests that your "true" family is out there, to be discovered in the mystery man who controls your destiny. This might create a very passive reader who detaches herself from her immediate world for the utopian ideal of an undead lover. Of course, many readers feel empowered by the book, and if it was simply a conventional story of weak women loves powerful man, why would so many people be caught up in it? What made this work so relevant to our cultural moment? Hmm...
Delete3. I think that we’re all shaped by our culture; I don’t think we’re defined by it. If you are immersed in one culture or another, it makes sense that you will pick up the habits and mannerisms of that culture. However, I think that there’s an innate you-ness that defines your being. In class, we discussed that we emulate certain behaviors because we like them. I would argue, though, that without something inside, that “I” we were talking about, we would have no sense of what we like or don’t like. As an example, if we were shaped solely by our nationality, ethnicity, family – all of those outside elements, my sister and I would be exactly alike in every way. We were raised in the same place, at the same time, by the same people in the same circumstances but our temperaments, likes, and dislikes are almost polar opposites. I’m easy going, she has a hair-trigger temper. She loves olives and I despise them.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to choosing your own culture, I think that a person is going to be most heavily influenced by the place they grew up. If you grew up in one culture, I have a hard time believing that you can truly change yourself to a new one, no matter how much you’re involved in it. It seems like that would be changing your “true” self. For me, this is mostly a mindset issue. You can take on the mannerisms of another group of people – walk, talk, and act just like they do. But I think in doing so you’re only doing just that – acting. This doesn’t mean that those actions aren’t sincere – I believe they can be. But a person raised in an English speaking culture can never change the way their mind works, just as a person raised in an Asian culture cannot change the way theirs works. In regard to argumentative process for example, an English speaking person will tend to argue in a linear fashion, while the Asian culture argues in a circular fashion. I think that cultural mindset is a core aspect of a person’s “I’, and this is one that can’t be changed.
Lindsi: thoughtful, honest responses here, and you make a good case for an essential identity (which I also think plays a great role on who "we" are). However, consider this: though you and your sister have different tastes and temperaments, you are alike in many fundamental ways, I imagine: you share the same core values from your family (I would think), you speak similarly (accents, speech patterns), and share an outlook based on your family region. Culture doesn't necessarily make us all clones...it simply shapes the worldview and sense of 'normal' that allows our identity to take shape in. For example, I might have been a teacher whether I was born in New York or in Ada. But being born in New York to Italian-American parents who grew up in Brooklyn decided certain very important things about my identity which would be totally different had I been born in Ada. So while "I" exist in both realities, they think, sound, and act quite differently. At some point, you can argue that I am no longer "me" despite the similar career path and tastes, some of which are controlled by culture as well.
DeleteIt's true, I think, that growing up in one culture stamps you and makes it hard to "see" another culture as an insider--which, in a way, supports the idea that culture is more important than an essential "you." However, there are always people who never feel like they fit in--that the culture they grew up in is somehow alien them. Family dynamics often have a role in this. However, can we truly say that no one born in an "English" culture can change the way their mind works? Is our mind totally shaped by language? If so, how do people learn other languages and live in other cultures? If language=culture, then learning a language is, in a sense, adopting that culture. We know people do this, and often. Immigrants, especially. I think anything in a person's culture can change, though I think culture shapes whether we think it CAN change...some cultures are so tied to their identity as an ethnicity or nationality that to change would be unthinkable and perhaps immoral!
1. On page 113, Culler writes that "Literature has long been blamed for encouraging the young to see themselves as characters in novels and to seek fulfilment in analogous ways : running away from home to experience the life of the metropolis, espousing the values of heroes and heroines in revolting against their elders," etc. What modern work do you feel works in this way today and why? How do people identify with the characters/situations in the book (or film) and why might this be perceived as dangerous?
ReplyDelete1) I wrote this response, then read the others and laughed that Jaimie said the same thing.
So Twlight proves this.
Bella Swan doesn't have a lot of personality. She enjoys typical things that girls at her age enjoy, and she over thinks things A LOT. Then she has a "hot guy in her life." And then she gets that guy. What's so interesting though is Bella has little to no personality. You can see this when as an analyst, you step back and think the characteristics of Bella. They're relatable. They're nothing special, and she's everything but extraordinary. That being said, it took off like wildfire due to this character. Because Bella lacks personality, the reader is able to unconsciously project their own personality onto the character. So the reader becomes the character. This is helped by Meyer telling the story from first person.
This can be very dangerous. VERY DANGEROUS. The book can give girls (and guys) wrong expectations when it comes to relationships. Look at Edward. He doesn't belch, fart, poop, or anything of the like. Plus he's "mysterious" making him appeal even more to women. This sets the expectation of a partner very high. To an extent that really isn't achievable.
Not to mention some things Edward does is kinda creepy.
Derek: great points here, even if you are jumping on the Twilight-bashing bandwagon. Though I've never read the books--only seen 2 of the movies--I don't have the same kind of issues most people seem to, though I can certainly see where they come from. Bella is somewhat passive (though she actively tries to discover Edward's identity and changes his mind about her, etc.), and at worst, it suggests that a woman is nothing without a man to 'control' her. Some people have said that beneath the counterculture guise of the vampire is a very conservative book with conservative values. However we read it, one thing to consider is Bella's character: she is somewhat vague, without a strong personality, allowing, as you say, "the reader [to become] the character." Yet many books/films/stories do this, from Star Wars (Luke) to Harry Potter (I would argue that Harry is pretty vague himself, since we're supposed to vicariously live through the magical adventures of this Everyman).
DeleteThe book does offer a series of ideals through its characters, most notably a "bad" boy who turns out to be quite good--in fact, perhaps too good. It also seems to hint at the tendency in our culture for women to try to 'save' or 'rehabilitate' bad guys. So that could be a disturbing message for our reading youth! The question is, though, how might Twilight empower many of its readers, particularly its women readers? Because it also seems to do this...
I could see it empowering readers through Bella going after what she wants--ie. Edward. Yet, I still can't see it as TOO empowering. Of course, Derek and I might be a little bias because of our work we did over Twilight last summer.
DeleteBella devalues herself when she compares herself to Edward, such as when she says "I wasn’t interesting. And he was. Interesting...and brilliant…and mysterious…and perfect"(Meyer 79). Unlike Luke and Harry Potter, Bella is did what she did solely for her own wants, whereas Luke and Harry Potter are looking out for the safety of their kind. They might've lacked a strong personality, but they were protecting their world. Bella just did it for herself. She was more of a selfish girl looking out for number one.
To top it off, Twilight has a tendency to make it seem like they are empowering Bella, yet, when analyzing this series, it's so much easier to see that this isn't the case. Edward watches her in her sleep (which is beyond creepy), he makes fun of her clumsiness (like when he says "Try to no fall into the ocean or get run over or anything”(Meyer 109)), he follows her to another town when she goes out shopping with some girlfriends, and he even grabs her inappropriately by her jacket after she tells him to leave her alone. All of these examples are JUST from the first book.
I wonder, Dr. Grasso, how you see it as empowering to women? I'm wondering because I'm lacking in obvious evidence. Maybe it's just because I can't stand the whiney teenage girl. haha
Answer to question #2
ReplyDeleteI am currently reading a young adult novel called “The Talk-Funny Girl”. The main character in this book is a seven-teen year old girl named Marjorie Richards. She isn’t made to go to school until she is nine and this was only because her parents were turned into child services. Her parents are sheltered and do not talk in correct English, it’s more like a jumble of words, and so she learned to talk the same way. Since her parents have separated themselves from the rest of the world, except their so called preacher, they do not work and upon Marjorie turning 17 they made her get a full-time job to support them. Her parents followed the preacher’s teaching that children should be constantly punished and therefore punish her by dousing, starvation, whipping, “facing” and “boying”. She is very patient and tries to give everyone older as much respect that she can, but is continuously put down and punished no matter how hard she tries. At her new job she learns to work hard and actually makes a place for herself to go where she is not scared and can get away from her horrible home/school life, since the kids at school make fun of her because of her speech and all the guy wants that is nice to her is sex (which she won’t give up and he almost rapes her). Her parents did not want to have her, so when her mother becomes pregnant with another baby Marjorie thinks that she must endure their punishments and abuse so that she can be there to take care of the baby when it comes, because she doesn’t want it to be treated the same as she was. She is stuck between being an adult and being a teen. She wants to be shown affection, but chooses the wrong places for it. She wants to make others happy, but goes about it in the wrong ways. This book is about why she is the way she is now as an adult and her difficulties in finding her identity. It answers this question perfectly.
Felicia: this is a fascinating book--I've never run across it. But it's a book which address how crucial the subject of identity is for an adolescent. We are told to be 'normal' and are shown how to do it through the media, etc., but what we aren't told is that these identities are ideals, literary constructions that are part of the cultural narrative. We will always fail at being 'perfect' in whatever way, and identity is a kind of perfection. What makes identity interesting and unique is HOW we fail. This books seems to explore the idea of failing to succeed with an identity.
Delete1. On page 113, Culler writes that "Literature has long been blamed for encouraging the young to see themselves as characters in novels and to seek fulfillment in analogous ways : running away from home to experience the life of the metropolis, espousing the values of heroes and heroines in revolting against their elders," etc. What modern work do you feel works in this way today and why? How do people identify with the characters/situations in the book (or film) and why might this be perceived as dangerous?
ReplyDeleteCatcher in the Rye, a novel by J.D. Salinger, which is still banned in some communities, is a work of fiction that I really identify with. To be more specific, I identify with Holden Caulfield the main character in the book. I identify with this character because as I was growing up I shared to some degree his sense of alienation. What I mean by this is that I had my own particular way of looking at the world that not many people that I knew then could relate to. For one thing I've always been a bookworm, a characteristic that only a few of my friends then shared. Besides reading many novels during my high school years I also liked to read articles in encyclopedias. You see I had a great thirst for knowledge. It would probably be accurate to say that the majority of my peers didn't share this characteristic. I can really relate to Caulfield's sense that American society was 'phony' that things weren't as they appeared to be, also. This belief impels me to try to look at things totally unfiltered to try to escape the hegemony maintained by authority figures, the media, and society. As with Holden I was always finding myself in trouble as a teenager. It seemed like I never really quite fit in. Because of this I was 'banned' in many social circles during my teen years.
I still think that this work is controversial because it can encourage one to question authority to examine the powers that be. When one reads this work it's difficult to walk away from it without your worldview altered at least slightly. Popular works such as this one can shape society in ways that tend to challenge the status quo. The figures (elites) operating behind the scenes to regulate society―the ones upholding the hegemony of ideas―fear such works because they have the ability to challenge the hegemony that they try to maintain.
Readers of this novel may tend to 'rebellion' as they identify with Caulfield; the degree to which they accept what the elites are telling them could be curtailed in some way. This novel has been banned allegedly because of some of the course language found in it. I suspect that at least in some cases access to this work is restricted not because of its use of language but due to the fact that some of the ideas contained therein have great power. I read this book in college quite a few years ago yet I still feel its influence today. There are many others, I suspect, who feel as I do about this book.
Scott: J.D. Salinger is a prime example of the power of literature to inspire emulation, since it spoke for a generation and continues to speak to teenagers and 20-somethings. When we're young, we often feel lost and alienated, with no one to truly express our feelings to. Books are readily available and confess to us just as we can confess to them; we find ourselves in books, or at least someone we want to be. They show us the way forward and by following someone else's life (which, as we're reading the novel, seems like OUR life), we can find the way out of the high-school/college labyrinth. This can be dangerous if the book goes against the dominant ideas of a culture, or simply might isolate the reader from this culture, as Salinger was certainly accused of. Ironically, some of the most subversive works quickly become classics once the author dies...and then we rebel against those works!
DeleteI see two things in this theoretical idea of one choosing their own ethnicity. We can call the first thing the ‘Carlton Effect’. If you’re familiar with The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, you know Will Smith’s dutiful cousin Carlton. While Carlton wants to succeed in law, he also wants to pursue a lifestyle that Will leads. He’s torn between, basically, the success a white person would see and the life Will leads, which is most easily identified in the stereotypical black lifestyle. And don’t act like you’ve never called Carlton white.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the second idea; that of people choosing WHAT they want to be. In America, we have an idea that everyone can be anything they want. Theoretically, this works out because of all the freedom we the People have. Pragmatically, it doesn’t always ring true. And so that leads to under-sized kids shooting hoops at the community basketball court dreaming of playing in the NBA. What is in us to dream; to be something else?
‘The modern individual, in this sense, is a person whose identity and worth are thought to come from feelings and personal qualities rather than from his or her place in the social hierarchy.’ (Culler, 114)
These two ideas of mine have a common attribute; there is a preconceived notion in SOCIETY that determines the person’s essence. Carlton is ‘white’ because he does ‘white things’. That kid at the court is undersized because history tells us that kids with those measurements don’t make it far in the NBA. Culture creates ideas about a person. It is the choice of that person to believe what culture says about them. White kids become black all the time. Black kids make it into the caucasisphere. Harold and Kumar aren’t actually foreign, are they? They ARE living the American dream. (For some!)
My point is simply this; essence is malleable. The culture will determine that persons ‘choices’. However, in the end, the person decides their path.
Stephen: great points here, especially concerning the idea that much of what we consider 'white' or 'black' (or whatever) is culturally constructed by outsiders. There is a big difference between African-American culture as perceived by those who feel part of it and those who simply observe it. We see Carlton and think, "oh, he's black," and when he doesn't "act" the way a black man should, we're confused. Of course, many people within a culture can also expect certain things of "their kind." I had a friend growing up in Atlanta who was often called an "Oreo" since he was "black on the outside, white on the inside" by his fellow African-Americans. But who we are isn't so easily defined, and culture goes beyond color, tradition, stereotypes, or religion. Who we are is profoundly shaped by culture, but there are cultures within cultures, and at some point, we make a conscious decision to belong.
ReplyDelete