Yesterday’s discussion in class on race, ‘imagined citizenry’, and identity caused me to think about my own identification with culture. I was born in the United Kingdom and immigrated to Australia at the age of 9. At the age of 15, my family and I received official Australian citizenship. Given my young age when we moved to Australia, my twin brother and I were susceptible to the Australian accent and thus by the time we finished elementary school people could no longer tell that we were English.

When we first arrived in Australia, my brother was given the nickname ‘pommy’ by his Australia mates. Pommy being derived from the word Pome meaning ‘Prisoner of Mother England.’ He did not take offense to the title (probably glad just to have made friends so quickly!), but I’ve seen this term used on other English friends and even my Dad, who have been offended by its meaning.

As I’ve travelled around the world and met new people, I’ve found this dual citizenship that I have to be a point of disequilibrium of my identity and culture. My parents who lived in the UK for over 40 years introduce themselves to people as English. Yet, given that I have now lived the majority of my life in Australia, I never really know what to say when people ask ‘where are you from?’

When I say I’m English, people respond with ‘but no you’re not… you have an Australian accent and you live in Australia?’ And it takes me a moment to think, yeah they’re right aren’t they?

I grew up in the United Kingdom in a tiny village: think 1 school, 1 pub, 1 shop, 1 park. Our house was surrounded each way by acres and acres of farmland belonging to local farmers. Christmas time meant snowmen, school being cancelled and nights by the fire. Despite the UK and Australia being very similar, Anglo-western countries, the culture and experiences I grew up with are far different than to that of my Australia friends.

I am a white woman. My identification with the United Kingdom and with Australia is not markedly different from the expectation of my visibility and appearance. Towards the end of yesterday’s class we talked about ‘appropriating culture’ and the problems that arise with the consumption of other bodies and other cultures. I echoed the thoughts of others in the class who held the view that one should not teach or advocate for a culture if they are not part of it. It is crucial to acknowledge the infrastructures of power and privilege to place yourself within a marginalised culture or group of people and in the discussion of the oppressions they face.

-Aimee

I found the discussion on Post-Gay that we looked at in class this week and examined in Jennifer Reed’s ‘The Three Stages of Ellen’ rather problematic. In individualising peoples identities beyond the need of categorizing, ideas of post-gay and post-human teach us that human expression is diverse and equally valid. This breakdown of recognition moves us beyond hegemonic norms and works to depoliticise people’s identities and makes them irrelevant.

As pointed out in class, this function of ‘post’ works to re-establish dominant norms and reaffirms the status quo. Due to this, it makes it difficult to subvert structures of power. Towards the end of class we started to look at technologies of gender. Clothing, toys, bathrooms etc, and it became clear that society is structured around the gender binary. What the notion of ‘post’ does is to teach that although we understand that there are inequities in social structures, understanding them and acknowledging them is enough.

This is clearly problematic for many reasons, notably through notion of binary thinking. To think that gender is a binary is simply narrow-minded thinking in contemporary society and must be debunked. Instead, gender needs to be understood as a spectrum. Gender literacy around identity, expression, and orientation must be improved. Our assigned birth sex is about biology. Our gender expression is about how one presents oneself as a gendered person. Our gender identity regards how we see ourselves. Our orientation is about who we want to have sex with. Each of these components are fluid and non-binary, and fall within a spectrum that each person identifies differently with. It is important to understand that acknowledge that gender is attached to complex, multidimensional social location rather than just one factor, and we must try to actively think against binary ideas.

The discussion regarding transgender people and bathrooms sparked a bit of controversy in the classroom this week. Whilst some acknowledged that someone of the opposite gender in a female bathroom or vice versa can often be connoted with a threat of violence in that space, others did not share the same expression. I personally believe that there should be additional bathrooms which are not gendered and are welcome by anyone who wishes to use them. However, I do also believe that a transgender woman, who identifies with being a woman as much as I do, should be allowed to enter a female bathroom without receiving any form of discrimination or resistance, and vice versa with transgender men in male bathrooms. How can I possibly judge a person on their gender identity and expression, and address how they are supposed to navigate that in society?

-Aimee

I found the ‘thinking diversity’ table which we looked at in class last week really interesting. The category which I found most thought-provoking was the last one called ‘the inter-face.’ In our modern, technology entrenched society it is easy to understand how identities are forged with what we see around us. Our natural body is constantly engaging with technology. How often do you sit on the train, glance up and see that everyone is engaged with some type of device?

On her discussion of “Cyborgs and Barbie Dolls: Feminism, Popular Culture and the Post-human Body” Kim Toffoletti explores how the Barbie Doll can be used to represent the idea of the ‘post-human’ through her multiple identities. In relation to the third category of ‘thinking diversity’ which we examined in class, I believe it is possible look at how Barbie allows us to locate gender inequalities and hegemonic norms which sensationalise the pointing out of differences. The interface looks at identity not as a solid notion, but as an assemblage. In this respect, I think it is important to look at how gender ideologies are reproduced and reinstated through popular culture and identity politics. Another gender class I take looks at issues related between gender and health. We look at how hegemonic notions of gender creates many issues which compound how we think of the ‘healthy body’ and how it marginalises people from the health care system. Mainstream media, and even mainstream practices of medicine tend to exclude marginalised bodies (Trans, disabled, racialized) and thus perpetuates troubling hegemonic inequities. Given that all bodies are different and all identities are individualised, it is interesting to examine how ‘post-human’ allows us to look at a space beyond these politics of recognition.

One of the opening concepts of our course examined how social media can paradoxically be linked to feelings of disconnection. In terms of commodity fetishism, I believe it is possible to view social network programs such as Facebook and Instagram as perpetuating the ability to present oneself in the most ‘idealized’ form.

As a generalization, we tend to present ourselves on our social media pages in a materialised way. We only post the ‘best’ photos of ourselves, the most delicious looking foods we’ve eaten, the exotic locations we’ve visited, and those wild nights out with a cocktail or ten in hand. As we obsessively scroll through our newsfeeds we are constantly seeking to feel proud of and satisfied with our online profile. We compare and dissect other people’s posts, interacting with them through ‘likes’ or comments.

Does this online circulation of judgement and ego lead to deeper feelings of disconnection for users? Or, does it bring people together and create an environment where people feel comfortable to present themselves in a way that they cannot do in reality?

Even the types of social media’s we use shape our identity. LinkedIn profiles help to establish our professional identities, whereas Myspace and Facebook accounts function for primarily social reasons.

I’m somewhat torn on providing a definitive answer. My personal use of social media allows me to interact with friends and family who live far away. I am able to express myself artistically through my photos, engage in conversations with my friends, be entertained by videos which pop up on my newsfeed (dogs, cats etc doing strange things), and even become informed of current global news-stories.

I do, however, have reservations regarding the use of hand-held technologies and social media by future young generations. I recently went out to dinner with some family friends who had a couple of young children with them. The children, both under the age of 12, had an iPad each which they played on throughout the entirety of the dinner with earphones plugged into each ear. Yes, they were quiet and did not complain/cause any drama, but they did not interact with anything but the screen in front of their eyes. The little girl even ate one handed so as to still be able to touch the screen. It’s this kind of infatuation and saturation of technology which I believe could lead to detrimental social effects for the future.

 – Aimee.

According to Angela McRobbie, post-modern feminism is affiliated with a rise in consumerism associated with identify, gender and sexuality. McRobbie contends that we have moved away from identity politics, being those controlled by the government, to a much more capitalist corporation which is marked by consumerism. This pressure to conform, comply and consume in order to belong in society has become inherent to the point of internalisation. Additionally, this sense of belonging is embedded deep within our identities. It has become such a naturalised act that we don’t even realise the ways in which we participate. Gender is a good example of how we repeatedly reproduce a factor of our identity in a naturalised way. This is particularly evident in how sexuality has become a technology of representation of gender.

After watching the ‘Pink Ribbons’ documentary on breast cancer I couldn’t help but think back to an interview I’d watched last year titled ‘The breasts don’t make the woman.’ I’ve posted the link to the interview below and also the link to the StyleLikeU website where you can find more interviews of similar nature.

http://stylelikeu.com/

The aim of this interview, and of others conducted by StyleLikeU, is to diminish universal concepts of beauty and expectations of women and men. I find Gail’s story to be very admirable in how she challenged notions of womanhood and feminine beauty. Instead of focusing on the loss of her breasts as an insecurity, Gail moves forward and embraces her new body as “a road map of everything [she’s] lived through.” At one point in the interview, when describing the size of her breasts as a young woman, she tells: ‘I am feminine. I don’t need to wear a padded bra to show that.’ This particular line made me think of the discussion we were having in class this week after examining advertisements by the Wonderbra and Victoria Secret.

Gossard Wonderbra 1994 1990s UK Eva Herzigova erotica womens underwear models supermodels Hello Boys

Despite Wonderbra’s aim to depict women owning their sexuality and thus feeling liberated to the degree of objectifying themselves, the purpose of the advertisement is still to sell a bra. And a bra with the specific function to accentuate and ‘push up’ a woman’s breasts. It’s true that it is difficult to see the model as a victim due to the fact that she plays with the consumer and flaunts the knowledge that she is in control of embodying and engaging her own sexuality. However, it is too soon to declare that these types of advertisements suggest that women have reached a new era of liberation. The advertisement only touches on one type of woman: the white, thin, wealthy woman. And as aforementioned, the advertisement is still selling a product which alienates and does not resonate with numerous women or those who identify as women, such as Gail Chovan. Instead, advertisements like the Wonderbra and Victoria Secret present a homogenisation of bodies and image in a sexualised way.

In referring back to McRobbie, it is of course the systems defined by capitalism that we should be critical of in producing the harmful objectification of bodies in order to increase consumerism.

-Aimee

Welcome reader! As a gender studies student, this blog will explore notions of gender, race and sexuality in the context of popular culture. I will be drawing on various theorists in order to extend upon ideas surrounding the relationship between popular culture and the media today.

One of our assigned readings for this week’s discussion on cultural theory was Raymond Williams 1958 essay ‘Culture is Ordinary’. Despite it being written nearly half a century ago, I found many of Raymond’s contentions surrounding popular culture applicable to contemporary ideologies in popular culture today. When we hear the word ‘culture’ we tend to think of it as a collective experience. In contrast, Raymond argues that culture is experienced and created on an individual level. I believe this to be an accurate interpretation of how we experience popular culture historically and in contemporary society today.

All of our experiences are an engagement with our own imagination of something. An interesting point brought up in class this week was how popular culture phenomenon’s such as Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ are experienced differently throughout time and location. This same story is explored throughout history in various different art forms, and is thus experienced as a popular cultural phenomenon differently by the individual. Personally, I have experienced Romeo and Juliet through the original text during high school education, and through Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 film adaptation (young Leo DiCaprio, ah!) In contrast, young children today will have likely experienced this story through cartoon adaptations, most notably the 2011 Smurf film ‘Gnomeo and Juliet.’ Thus, the same iconic and historic story of love and of course, tragedy, is experienced differently by individuals throughout time.

In addition to being a gender studies student, I also study film and therefore I find it very interesting to examine how films as an art form in popular culture are so effective in touching on deep structures embedded in ideology. As was discussed in the very opening of this week’s class, how many times do we experience something that is ‘like it but not it’? Films are uniquely successful in achieving this experience, due to the fact that they tap into popular culture and reflect historical or contemporary attitudes and behaviours of society. Popular film series such as ‘Harry Potter’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings’ are made wildly popular given that they reflect certain attitudes and nostalgias of society and are consequently endorsed by specific audiences who loyally follow the series’ progression. In turn, they transform into popular culture phenomenons which can historically timestamp a specific period of cultural attitudes and events.

In returning back to Raymond Williams, I believe that films work as a perfect example in relation to how culture is experienced differently by the individual. By merely taking into account ethnicity, race, gender, class, age and sexuality, it is nonsensical to suggest that culture can be experienced collectively given that every person is unique, and will bring their own experiences in their engagement with popular culture.

– Aimee