How do you be a “self”?

Last month, I attended a Fashion Show for my very first time in my life. In a nutshell, the experience was interesting and I would say,  a little bit shocking. I did not have any expectations prior to the show and was extremely excited to be able to attend such a glamorous event.

Let’s start from the beginning.

I entered the venue just in time for the first show to begin. I walked towards the standing crowd which  hovered around the photographers and the VIP seats in the front row beside the bright runway. I instantly eyed an open space at the benches for me and my friend. We quickly squeezed between the sea of people , trying to get to our spots before anyone tried to take it. Just as we sat down, the lights dimmed and music started to boom the entire room. The first model appeared wearing a shiny silver suit. She strutted until the end the of runway, posed for the photographers, turned around, and walked back towards the screen. Sitting in the second row, I could see her face perfectly clear. Every model’s face I witnessed were interestingly all very similar. Caked on layers upon layers of foundation, mascara, eyeliner, eyeshadow and lipstick, it seemed to me that every model portrayed a homogenized, mainstream look. Her face was emotionless, blank, a Blasé attitude was depicted through her facial expression.

In relation to identity, the self and society, it became extremely clear to me that the true model’s identities  on the runway were veiled from the layers of makeup and the sparkling suits. The moment each person stepped onto the runway, a certain kind of portrayal was evident to the audience (that an individual who was chosen to model a particular designer’s novel collection of clothing, was solely determined based on the model’s “look”). Throughout the 20 seconds in which each model was able to struct and show the entirety of an enlightened outfit, I could feel that the individual was constantly bombarded with judgments drafted  by every attendee, however, not only commenting on the clothing design, but critiquing the model as an individual.

As the model flowed down the runway  with their signature walk, I watched the audience’s heads turn as the model passed them. People were constantly scanning the model from head to toe,  assessing their walk, their posture, their physique, their potential of showing off the pompous outfit in a right matter.

After watching a couple of models walk up the down the platform and also observing the front row fashion designers with cat eye glasses, fire red lipstick sitting upright in their seats with their lips pouting, scanning the model’s bodies, it suddenly struck me that the models were completely divorced from their true, in-born identities. Throughout the two hour event, I came to the realization that these model’s identities, or “the self” was heavily composed and produced of the exaggerated makeup, the volumous hairdo, and their extravagent outfit of today’s modernized high fashion (though some of which is debatable in aesthetic appeal, I would argue). It is through the confined space of the runway, the bold lighting on their faces, and the hundreds of people observing, that each model’s self/identity was not only controlled, but restricted within the tangible and intangible spacial dynamics. It is through the makeup, the hairdo, and the clothing that DEFINED who the model was on stage as an individual.

In retrospect, not only does it mean that your identity is shaped by the materials the model is wearing, but it is also shaped by the institutional organizations of the Fashion Show, as well as the people who were watching, observing their every move.

This inescapable concept of the “self” as the core production of others around you, is thus suggested in Smith’s 1987 The Everyday as Problematic. Smith raises the notion of “norm” in certain settings, as “teachers learn a vocabulary and analytic procedures that accomplish the classroom in the institutional mode… analyze and name the behavior of students as “appropriate” or “inappropriate”(573). What she is noting is that these ideologies provide procedures for what goes on, and as a result, provides the notion of observable -reportable within such settings (573). Therefore in relation to the fashion show, Smith’s ‘observable-reportable’ idea of the teachers relates to this type of procedure controlled by the fashion designers sitting in the front row seats. It is through the internalized process of labelling “pass” or “fail” towards the models that form the identities of these faces.

Everyone’s identities are sociall constructed by others around us. The creation of a false facade is unavoidable and real. As a UBC student, your sex, your faculty,  your major, the clubs you partake in, all define your identity. And within each aspects listed, there are social relations that develop. Professors, peers, friends and family all determine your identity as a whole. In some aspects, it controls you and takes over your identity without your consciousness.

I constantly question:  How does one enable him/herself to meander through society without feeling watched or judged? How can somone comply to a “self” when the “self” is controlled by external dynamics?

References:

Smith, Dorothy. (1987). The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Lebanon, N.H: University Press of New England.

 

This, I know, I am Not… But what am I? – Goffman’s explanation of how individuals define themselves

As a sociology major, I find myself constantly asking questions about myself, and the things I do. What do I identify with as an individual, and how do I fit in with others? Why do I fit in with certain individuals better than others? How do we figure out who we are amongst all of the other individuals around us? Are we all different? What qualities do we share? What social situations do I feel comfortable in, and which are out of my comfort zone?

Recently I came across a quote, which has inspired even more questions to flow through my mind. The quote can be found in “Asylums,” by Erving Goffman, and it highlights yet another way of thinking about individuals in society. His definition of individuals is as follows…

“A stance-taking entity, a something that takes a position somewhere between identification with an organization and opposition to it, and is ready at the slightest pressure to regain its balance by shifting its involvement in either direction. It is thus against something that the self can emerge…” (502)

One idea that I find myself constantly returning to is an exercise that my SOCI100 Prof used, which was meant to promote us to think sociologically about our environment. He asked us to think about a line up for something, like a Starbucks, and the different social cues that surround it. This prompted me to realize that I have always been fascinated with observing people following (or breaking) social cues and interacting with their environment. I have often found myself ‘people watching’ at Starbucks, and elsewhere. This exercise really got me thinking about all the sociological thoughts that I have, but had never identified them as such prior to taking my first sociology course.

Returning back to the Goffman quote, I had previously never contemplated the idea of defining myself against something I am not. After considering this idea, however, I realized that I am able to apply it to my Starbucks adventures. The Goffman quote prompted me to rethink some of the questions I have previously asked myself about line-ups. Why do I choose to be polite and follow the social cues that tell me I should wait my turn? I feel confident in saying that I am a fairly polite individual, but how did I come to identify myself as such?

This leads me to the main purpose of this post, which is to discuss how individuals in society approach situations, and how the decisions we make in these situations can define how we are seen in society, and how we identify ourselves. How each individual’s socialization guides them through their daily decisions.

More specifically I want to talk about UBC Clubs Days, and how individuals decide which clubs they are interested in, and which to avoid. Some of the behaviour students exhibited highlights the relevance of Goffman’s definition of individuals to the daily life of a UBC student.

This year I had the opportunity to “table” for two clubs on Clubs Days, one academically inclined, and one socially inclined. It was interesting to see how some individuals would scoff at the thought of joining an academic club, whilst others were uninterested with the idea of joining a club that wouldn’t benefit them on their resumes. I heard many statements beginning with “I am not”… “I’m not really interested in a social club,” “I’m not really looking for extra work outside class.” Which, in my head, translated into “I am not whatever your club is,” which leads us back go Goffman. These individuals defined themselves against what my clubs had to offer, but this is only one clue into the complexity that is each individual I interacted with during Clubs Days. All I know about those who passed off my clubs is one thing that they are NOT, but I have no idea what they ARE. Why are they not interested in my clubs? Is it because they truly do not want to have a social life? Or is it because they have been socialized to see social clubs a certain way?

…And do they budge in Starbucks line-ups?

I AM interested in my  academic club, but at the same time, I AM NOT interested in focusing solely on my studies when I am faced with so many amazing social opportunities. I line up at Starbucks for fear of being known as that one rude chick that budges because this, I know, I am not. But what AM I? I am polite because I don’t budge… I am a sociology major because I clicked the SSC button… but what else?

References:

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books.

A Critical Response to a UBC Event: Meeting at the Feminist Club

In this blog post, I will be doing a critical response of the second general meeting I attended at the Feminist Club (I missed the first general meeting but luckily I made it to the second!). This is the first year the Feminist Club will be operating as they are a newly formed club on the UBC campus. The club’s application was admitted late by UBC’s Alma Matter Society (AMS), so unfortunately they were not able to get a booth open to promote their club at some of the promotional events happening on campus at the beginning of the year that were open to clubs (i.e. Imagine Day, Clubs Day). Fortunately, I happened to come across it on my Facebook newsfeed and followed up with “liking” them on Facebook to get the details of how to get involved and lend my support to them.

The meeting took place in a study room at a library on campus. When I walked in, quite a few people turned to the door to say, “Hi!” Everyone sat in chairs around some tables in a circle formation, so I went to join them. Very soon after, the meeting started. The student leading the meeting led a round-table discussion to introduce everyone to one another. We went around the circle of students saying our name and an area of interest we have within the broad topic of feminism that we hoped to explore through the club. Some recurring themes were brought up:

(1)    Feminism had become a “dirty word” and, while we recognized this was a large issue, we wanted to tackle it through the club.

(2)    Ridged gendered boundaries for masculinity and femininity were harmful for all and we hoped to address them.

(3)    We wanted to make feminism accessible to the public in a language that they could understand and not be intimidated by in order to get more people to enter the conversation.

Of course, there were more issues brought up in the meeting, but those three themes were brought up frequently. There are about 15 people at the meeting (myself included) and, looking around the room, I could not help but notice that there were only 4 men at the meeting—the other attendees were women. It was also hard to ignore that we were all had privileged backgrounds. We were all students who had gone on to post-secondary education at one of the country’s top-ranking universities. We had all sought out the club in order to be there—after all, the club had not been able to promote itself in the same way other clubs at UBC had had the opportunity to at the popular Imagine Day and Clubs Day events. That we sought out the club as we did, spoke further to our privileged backgrounds: we had some knowledge of what feminism was because we had many resources available to us to learn and we were able to lend our free time to go to a club meeting.

Feminism is important as a systematic broad-based movement, but certainly individuals who “the patriarchy” effects the most drastically are those from less privileged backgrounds, those who did not have so many resources available to them, and those who might not be so economically well-endowed as to have free time off work to be actively seeking out a group to talk about feminism or to attend a club meeting. Of course, I definitely recognize that it is important to empower feminists to speak out and perhaps the club could function as a “support group” of sorts for existing self-identified feminists on UBC’s campus to gain confidence in speaking amongst themselves about issues important to the feminist cause. However, as for the three recurring themes we spoke about during the meeting, it would be more fruitful to open the club to a wider populace. The recurring three themes spoke to the necessity of a larger public dialogue and so it would make sense that this would need to include a wider dynamic of individuals from perhaps less privileged backgrounds.

Michael Kimmel (2008) writes about fraternities being developed to create a “white man’s space” with the introduction of women, immigrants, and freed blacks onto university campuses in North America. Kimmel explains that fraternities were created as a space that white males could “get away” to in order to separate themselves from the new additions to their campuses. Certainly Kimmel addresses a very loaded subject, but I believe a club like the Feminist Club has wrongly-garnered a “privileged woman’s space” status—which would explain the lack of male presence at the club meeting. Although the club attendees do not want to “get away” from others on campus like the fraternity example highlights, club non-attendees can very easily frame them as wanting to.

Jewkes and Murcott (1996) offer a perspective on community and belonging that can help us understand the differing perspectives that insiders and outsiders may have on the same club. They explain that “community members’ perceptions of sharing are central to the delineation of [community] boundaries” (Jewkes & Murcott, 1996, p. 555). Club attendees are able to create an atmosphere of community amongst themselves as they share their thoughts and experiences relating to feminism, but club non-attendees do not have this basis of sharing to draw on—thus club non-attendees are easily able to revert to making assumptions of the club attendees through their apparent positionality. Smith (2005) defines positionality in terms of ‘standpoint’. The standpoint of current club attendees is a privileged, university-educated one and so non-attendees can revert to making snap judgements about the club by making assumptions of the attendees’ positionality and recognize it as a space for the privileged and the university-educated.

Thus, the challenge then becomes one of trying to bridge the gap between club attendees and club non-attendees who may have different perceptions on what the club is because of their respective insider and outsider positions. That being said, I really enjoyed attending the meeting and meeting some of the other attendees. It was a very welcoming atmosphere! During the roundtable discussion, I brought up the issue of inaccessibility that the feminism conversation tends to have in the public sphere outside the privileged setting of the university. Others agreed with me and we had a brief conversation about how we could bridge that university-public gap in the conversation. We tossed around the idea of having some seminars open to the public in various locations around the city that are not on campus. The club leader wanted me to talk with her further about ideas we could implement together. I am very much up for this challenge and can’t wait to see where we will go from here!

 

References

Jewkes, R., & Murcott, A. (1996). Meanings of Community. Social Science and Medicine, 43(4), 555-563.

Kimmel, M. (2008). Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. Toronto, Canada: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.

Smith, D. (2005). Institutional Ethnography: A sociology for people. Lanham, MD: Rowman AltaMira

 

Imagine Day

10653903_10152672130944344_158347214_n[1](Imagine Day)

10681679_10152677517074344_2062266911_n[2] (IAM UBC)

This event was so inspiring because it had a lot clubs to browse, general knowledge on different faculties and departments, music, food, and free stuff like a coupon to Davids Tea and a lot of candies and pens! Despite it raining on Imagine Day it still went well and I learned a lot of interesting and new things. For ex: I didn’t know that groups like the Indonesian Society had sponsorship with Air China, so when you travel you save an extra 10%!!! The BBQ in the chemistry building was to die for, too bad I didn’t get any.. Hence not being a chemistry major. However, I did enjoy what the Arts faculty put together and how we were on schedule with bringing and catering in sandwiches and salads from Subway! That was yummy and was a nice way to meet and interact with new 1st year students and old friends. It was very nice to see how Buchanan space was almost filled with tables of presenters and posters to encourage us to sign up with their according academics. The most favorite part was seeing the faces of the 1st year students following their awesome team leaders that held signs, had face paints, logos, etc. this was totally a great way encourage them to a huge university and to welcome, let them know what and who we are, what we do and represent! “I AM UBC”

How do we connect as “I AM UBC?”, in the beginning of class we discussed and connected that we are all foreigners and are on Salish Coasts peoples territory. So with that in mind, we all must share everything together and learn and take from one another in a seeding manner. UBC has a very natural, resourceful, beautiful area that has a lot of rich history and a proud area that we all can connect to. From the perfect untouched forests, to its beaches and water UBC is US. Just being able to have the resources and the ability to learn in such a space makes UBC a sense that it is our home, our space and that we all need to stick together and support one another. Imagine day shows us just that and that its one of the days were all our colours and spirits come out to join the big family connection to UBC.

Streetpapers and Social Identity: Some Observations on Community-Building

For the last five months, I have been volunteering with an organization called Pivot Legal in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) neighbourhood of Vancouver. Pivot is dedicated towards improving the lives of residents in this low-income neighbourhood by implementing social change on many levels of society.(1) As part of this aim, they operate a project called Megaphone, which is a micro-enterprise streetpaper which they sell to DTES residents.(2) In turn, these “vendors” would sell Megaphone to members of the general public for a profit. During my time volunteering, one of my tasks was to manage the sale of Megaphone papers to the vendors. As such, I was able to observe this program over a prolonged period of time and gain a sense of how this micro-enterprise was able to contribute to a sense of belonging, identity, and community for residents of the DTES.

For a neighbourhood where many struggle to make ends meet, the Megaphone program provided an important source of income for the provision of basic necessities. Our vendors are generally unemployed, so this formed a significant part of their subsistence. Additionally, being able to play an active part in earning their own income (by selling papers, building relationships with customers, etc.) often cultivated a sense of pride and self-worth. I spoke to several vendors who spoke positively about being able to “run” their own micro-enterprise, how selling papers gave them something valuable to do with their time and allowed them to subvert stereotypical, discriminatory notions of the “lazy” unemployed. Thus, Megaphone was able to contribute to the perceived self-worth of DTES residents.

Megaphone also serves as a vehicle for the communal identity of the DTES. The fact that most of the contributors to this paper are residents from the DTES, including vendors themselves, means that it is a platform for airing ideas about what the DTES actually is, what living here actually means to its residents. This is reflected in countless articles, interviews, and op-eds concerned with the culture, achievements, and general self-conception of the DTES community. Through Megaphone, residents were able to cultivate and propagate a narrative that valorized the day-to-day efforts of the DTES community to survive and to fight for its own rights in wider society. In a media culture that generally views the DTES in the negative – as a problem, a dangerous place, an aesthetic blight – Megaphone is an opportunity for locals to recast their community in a better light, to form a distinct self-identity that people could feel attachment and belonging to. Examples of this include articles chronicling the fight against gentrification, the campaign against abusive landlords, communal festivities, and the organization of art and photography contests.

By providing a source of income for its vendors and by serving as a platform for the sharing of ideas, Pivot’s Megaphone program helps people in the DTES to build a positive social identity both at the individual and communal levels. It is a great example of a grassroots-level initiative that implements positive social change in a way that reflects the needs and local sensibilities of the community which it serves.

1)      “About.” Pivot Legal Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. <http://www.pivotlegal.org/about>.
A link to Pivot’s website describing their mission statement and work in greater detail.

2)      “Hope in Shadows.” Pivot Legal Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. <http://www.pivotlegal.org/hope_in_shadows>.
Refer to the “Vendor Program” section to learn more about the Megaphone project.

A Positioning Paper

It is quite popular amongst qualitative feminist researchers nowadays to include so-called “positioning papers” within their research. These papers give an account of the researcher’s relationship, both personal and otherwise, to their research subject in order to increase the transparency and accountability of their research project. The reason they are included is because feminist theory believes that all knowledge begins from “standpoints” that are situated depending on a person/group’s position within society. (1)  From this perspective, research becomes knowledge produced from the socially situated “standpoint” of the researcher.As such, providing context about their own connection to the material (ie. what motivates them, what goals they have, how they are emotionally invested in their research) helps readers better assess the knowledge that they generate.

While my fellow classmates and I are not qualitative researchers in a formal sense, we will be doing at least some qualitative research – over the next few months, we will be recording and analyzing our observations of social life on this blog, particularly in relation to issues of social identity.(2) Therefore, I would like to start with a small positioning paper of sorts where I will give a brief account of how I came to see the world through the lens of the social – in other words, how individual and group behaviours are shaped by norms and interactions that originate from society at large.(3)

It began with the rather unexpected discovery that I was attracted to men. In my first year at university, I happened across a football game on television – I suppose most of us would call it soccer. It is ironic because I have no interest in sports at all, yet to this day I remember that it was a Spanish team; that a goal had just been scored; that he had dark hair and tanned skin; that his shirt rode up when he leapt in exhilaration. Over the next few weeks and months, a deep sense of confusion set in – not that this desire existed, but that it was somehow lacking. Not in passion, authenticity, moral value or any of those other stereotypical notions. Rather, what it was lacking in was information – the kind that told you what you wanted, what to anticipate, and what to look for. You see, I had been attracted to girls before. Those sentiments always came with what I realized was an immense bundle of pre-packaged knowledge that told you what a boy and girl should do (hold hands, date); what wanting each other meant (having sex); what they could expect (roses, a family). Together, these strands of knowledge form a veritable guidebook that leads you through every aspect and every stage of your desire – from the awkward fumbling of first times to late-night walks in the moonlight, it tells you what to expect and how to expect it. Most importantly, it tells you what desire actually means. Without it, desire is just a sudden reaction to external stimuli, little more than a shot in the dark. And that was all I had.

Gradually, I came to realize that it made no sense if sexuality is innate, as most believe, that I should have so much knowledge available to my heterosexual inclinations and so little attached to my homosexual ones. The only plausible alternative? That society is the actual source of our sexual knowledge, that it plays a dominant role in shaping our desires. As I became increasingly conscious of this fact and as it began to infuse my worldview on an intuitive level, I gained the ability to observe my own sexual development. I was able to “track” changes over time, making note of how new experiences and ideas that I came across had an effect on my preferences and expectations. Gradually, a whole new world became available to me as I applied what I understood about my sexual identity to other aspects of social life: gender, employment, politics, etc. With the aid of coursework, I continued my avid exploration of this new lens in increasing detail – what are the ramifications of economic marginalization, of education policy, of homeless ordinances? Nowadays, I can hardly look at an issue without wondering about its social origins and what kinds of implications it might have. This is the perspective that I bring to the table – an understanding of the sociological perspective that is intimately connected to me on both personal and intellectual levels and one that I likely will not tire of exploring anytime soon.

 

1)      Bowell, T. “Feminist Standpoint Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/fem-stan/#H4>.
This website offers a more in-depth explanation of feminist standpoint theory and its relationship to qualitative research and knowledge production in general.

2)      “What Is Qualitative Research?” Qualitative Research Consultants Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2014. <http://www.qrca.org/?page=whatisqualresearch>.
A quick, easy-to-understand explanation of what qualitative research is.

3)      Flores, Laura. “What Is Social Constructionism.” Oakes College – University of Santa Cruz. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2014. <http://oakes.ucsc.edu/academics/Core%20Course/oakes-core-awards-2012/laura-flores.html>.
This link explains the “sociological perspective” by using examples of social inequality from the areas of gender, sex, class, and race. It is very useful for those new to the idea of social constructionism.