Post six - masculinity in sport.

This week’s guest lecture concerned representations of masculinity (or masculinities) in sport. It discussed the generational diffusion of aggressive masculinity amongst supporters, resulting in a dissection of the lecturer’s own research into the phenomena of ‘hooliganism’ amongst football/soccer fans.

Whilst noting the issue is complex, and shaped by differing aspects of social, cultural and historical circumstance, Spaiij identifies six features he believes are “universal to the construction of ‘hooligan’ identities” (p. 369).

-       Excitement and pleasurable emotional arousal

         (thrill of enacting violence)

-       Hard masculinity

   (tied to heteronormative presumptions; performing physical prowess)

-       Territorial identifications

   (between groups, and groups and police; public space both physical and signified)

-       Individual and collective management of reputation

   (of team, group and individual; prestige, honour, status)

-       A sense of solidarity and belonging

   (within groups; romantic vigilance of network maintenance)

-       Representations of sovereignty and autonomy

   (other loyalties presented, eg. nationalist tshirt slogans)

Spaaij notes the construction of collective identity amongst hooligan groups hinges on the emphasis of “minor but nevertheless fundamentally perceived differences” (p. 372) between differing groups. This is despite common interests between the groups (ie. the game itself), and differences within the differing groups (ie. age, ethnicity etc). An informal code of behaviour, or honour attainment, is adhered to within groups, and whilst not being explicit, can be challenged by individuals of ‘greater status’ amongst a group (p. 374).

The “symbolic opposition and ritualized aggression” (p. 387) performed by these groups underpins the ‘interdependence’ they require of each other in enacting these behaviours. Spaiij also notes ‘bluffing’, and ‘parading’ are essential elements of hooliganism, with the aim of achieving the same end without resorting to physical violence (p. 387).

A romanticized image of hooliganism has begun to pervade popular culture, with clothing labels, films and books reflecting and reinforcing these actions beyond niche pockets of extreme supporter behaviour.

Reference

Spaaij, R 2008, ‘Men Like Us, Boys Like Them: Violence, Masculinity, and Collective Identity in Football Hooliganism’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 369-392.

Post five - technology and identity.

I am doing my seminar presentation this week on Kerreen Reiger and Rhea Dempsey’s article, Performing Birth in a Culture of Fear: an embodied crisis of late modernity. It relates to our week 9 topic on sexualized technologies – surgery, sexuality and identity. I’ve found that some of the points they raise and arguments they make really resonate with me, as my own social experience is beginning to include friends who have children. Many of these new parents have experienced several facets of a ‘medicalised’ birth experience, with differing levels of agency and understanding in the process, as well as differing levels of interest in the possibility of performing choice and decision making in this process.

Reiger and Demspey argue that childbirth is both collectively and individually performed, and explore the interplay between the physiological processes of birth and the internalization of cultural norms. This manifests in the level of non-critical medical ‘intervention’ present in the birthing processes, with the intimation in the article that intervention is the delivery of medical processes, such as drugs, surgery or machine monitoring, that are not sought by a labouring woman but pushed by care attendants, possibly acting out of institutional power relations. In doing so, a cultural norm is enacted – that is, ceding agency to a perceived authority, in this case, medical staff.

This is not to say that in some circumstances, medical authority, guidance and decision making should not be relied upon. However, in many non-critical circumstances, the interaction and support of birthing partners and caregivers can influence the agency of a woman’s capacity to endure. Reiger and Dempsey note “expressions of concern, anxiety and sympathy reiterate and therefore enact a perception that women ‘can’t do it anymore’ “ (p. 371).

The article states there is a cultural norm of anxiety and fear surrounding birth in Western culture, that is both reflected and constructed by the media (p. 365). Expectations of the process are further tangled with the West’s preoccupation with celebrity and body image (p.366), and the modern reliance on technological solutions to problems. In the United States research on birthing trends shows this reliance is leading to rising rates of caesarean delivery, with a 10% jump in rates in the 10 year period from 1997-2007.

 

Feminist critiques of birthing advocate arguments against a reliance on ‘technological birthing’ argue that many of these ideals are essentialist, moralizing and patronizing of women’s choices (p. 366), reducing women to an innate blueprint of ‘primal woman’, or ‘mother’. My own opinion is that, psychological, as well as physical, preparedness affects the physiological act of birth, including the preparedness of birthing support partners. The right to access non-critical caesarean or epidural should absolutely be a woman’s choice, however many of the technologies – drugs and surgery – affect recovery times, and should be fully understood before labour begins.

Reference

Reiger, K & Dempsey, R 2006, ‘Performing Birth in a Culture of Fear’, Health Sociology Review, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 363-373.

Post four - Barthes and semiotics.

This week I am tackling Roland Barthes and his discourse on social semiotics. Barthes’ text A Lover’s Discourse (1978) is a series of fragmented essay style musings on the rhetoric that exists in popular discourse surrounding the verbal interaction between lovers.

Chandler (2007, pg. 2) describes semiotics as being more in depth than the basic ‘study of signs’ definition, but of being the study of anything that ‘stands’ for something else. This would include “words, images, sounds, gestures and objects“ (p. 2), leading to a broad study of “how reality is represented” (pg. 2). Chandler goes on to describe how modern semiotics stems from two schools of thought – the Swiss linguist Saussure and American philosopher Peirce.

Barthes follows in the Saussurean tradition, with his interest in linguistics and language leading him to write A Lover’s Discourse in an attempt to produce a truly neutral document, one that would not lead the reader with implied meanings or culturally understood contexts in the language used.

His narrative titled Waiting consists of six small paragraphs of the internal dialogue his character endures whilst anticipating the arrival of another person, perhaps a date. The paragraphs chart emotions felt, whilst trying to rein in these emotions, and maintain a sense of ‘proportion’ (Barthes, 1978, pg 37). The language used is evocative, yet not. His opening paragraph clearly states he is “waiting for an arrival” (pg. 37), before paragraph two declares he is ‘organising’ and ‘manipulating’ the waiting (pg. 37), turning it into a play which is acted out in various scenes of reaction – “taking it badly”, or a ‘calm’ greeting (pg. 37-38).

The specific words used to tell this story become ‘signs’ of how this scenario will play out. If the character ‘takes [the waiting] badly’, then the reader can assume this to be a sign of a negative outcome of the interaction between the characters when they do meet. Whereas if the character gives a ‘calm’ greeting, perhaps the character is forgiving of the lack of punctuality of the other, which could be taken as a sign of the characters personality, perhaps as a relaxed, understanding individual.

However these signs may not signify the ‘true’ nature of the character, perhaps they give a calm greeting as a sign of manners when truly they feel something else? The signs then signify something else, though the sign is the same action.

The understood terminology is therefore dependent on context and individual understandings, the very implication that Barthes hoped to disprove with his text.

References

Barthes, R 1978, 'Waiting', A Lover's Discourse, Farrar, Strauss & Giroux (trans.), Noonday Press, New York, pp. 37-40.

Chandler, D 2007, Semiotics: The Basics, Routledge, New York.

Post three - legal kinship ties.

The week 5 topic is a discussion of kinship, social ties and relationships that legally and informally group individuals as ‘family’. Butler’s 2004 article, “Is Kinship always Heterosexual?”, raises many questions regarding the social and legal definitions of kinship, and the implied inclusion/exclusion of specific groups/individuals in these arguments. She notes kinship is a set of practices that institute relationships of various kinds, which if we understand exist to address fundamental forms of human dependency, eg child rearing, emotional support or generational ties, we can posit they exist to negotiate the reproduction of life and the demands of death (p. 102).

Butler (p 104) further states variations of kinship that challenge the normative heterosexuality based on family forms secured through marriage are hotly debated, noting marriage has also been separated from questions of kinship to the extent that gay marriage legislative proposals often exclude rights to adoption or reproductive technologies as one of the assumed entitlements of marriage (2004, p. 103-104).

Debates on gay marriage are thus complicated by the norm of belief that marriage is a fundamental precursor to reproduction, therefore the debate also encompasses arguments surrounding the extent of ‘allowable’ family forms both socially and legally.

This turn to ‘legality’ and the intervention of the state in recognized alternative kinship models leads to the examination of what a sanctioned relationship is. Butler notes that in current politics surrounding this debate, the options are to take a stand for or against gay marriage, but this ignores the underlying critical reflection of why and how this is the question? Why gay marriage specifically and not more broadly a legislative revolution in terms of legal kinship ties? Does it even need to be legal? (p. 107)

A broader definition of family could include social networks, rather than blood or marriage ties, as a boundary for family models. Butler notes a proposal in France to institute civil unions or ‘pacts of social solidarity’ as an alternative to marriage that would secure a legal bond between individuals (p. 112). As long as the debate surrounding gay kinship focuses on the inclusion or exclusion of couples to the contract of marriage, the question of why marriage is the major legal legitimator of sexual relationships, gay or straight, will go unanswered.

Reference

Butler, J 2004, ‘Is Kinship always heterosexual?’, Undoing Gender, Routledge, New York and London, pp. 102-130.

Post two - Foucault and discourse.

For this week’s blog I have been wading through Foucault’s ‘The Deployment of Sexuality: Domain’, from his ‘History of Sexuality’, and Riki Wilchins’ exegesis of Foucault’s chapter.

Both these readings relate to our lecture on how sex and gender operate in discourse.

Foucault writes in the introduction to his book that the central issue of his thesis is to discover the “way in which sex is ‘put into discourse’ ”; how it is spoken about and by whom, the position they inhabit and the institution they are prompted by. (Wilchins, p. 59)

Wilchins describes this kind of discourse as a “social dialogue” (Wilchins, p.59), in which society engages in a set of practices that make meaning and ‘rules’ by which its citizens live by. Sexual discourse in this context is not the physicality of sex, but the way in which the physicality is understood.

Foucault determines sexuality to be a “dense transfer point for relations of power” (Foucault, p. 103). He believes there to be four central points or ‘strategies’ in the structure of knowledge and power relating to sex.

1-    “a hysterization of women’s bodies” (p. 104)

relating to the analysis of the feminine body and concluding that it is ‘saturated’ with sexuality, thus “integrating it into the sphere of medical practice” by virtue of a specific pathologizing of women’s (only) role in society as Mother, never as sexual being

2-    “a pedagogization of children’s sex” (p. 104)

that children are ‘preliminary sexual beings’, which is both ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’, thus requiring strict direction and control by a series of authoritative facilitators, such as parents, teachers, doctors etc

3-    “a socialization of procreative behaviour” (p. 104-5)

economic ‘incitements and restrictions’, political ‘responsibilitization’ and fiscal fertility as social arbiters of (married) couples birth-control practices

4-    “a psychiatrization of perverse pleasure” (p. 105)

sexual instinct isolated as separate from biological instinct, and assigned ‘normal’ and ‘anomalous’ traits

Foucault states these four sites of knowledge emerged in the nineteenth century as both ‘targets and anchorage points’ for privileged sexual knowledge. Wilchins states these points maintained credence as they were articulated in social spheres with the authorative voice of Truth, as evinced by Science and Logic (Wilchins, p. 61).

Within the ‘socialization of procreative behaviour’ structure, we can see an example of established ‘norms’ being challenged with the rise in support of same sex couple access to IVF technologies. The IVF Australia website gives a commonplace illustration of how a lesbian couple could physically utilise the IVF program. The language used is not hysterical, or in any way leads the reader to believe this example is unusual. Here, not only are same sex couples viewed as legally legitimate potential parents, but socially they are viewed as having the same right as normative binary gendered couples seeking reproductive assistance in order to start a family.

Conversely, only Western Australia, New South Wales and the ACT allow same sex couples to adopt a child in Australia. As of 2010 NSW is the only state that explicitly states this in a parliamentary Act.

References

Foucault, M c1976, ‘The Deployment of Sexuality: Domain’, in The History of Sexuality, R. Hurley trans., Penguin 1998 edn London, pp. 103-114.

Wilchins, R 2004, “Foucault and the Disciplinary Society’, in Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer, Alyson Books, Los Angeles, pp. 59-82.

Post one - hair metal.

Considering that today's class was an overview of what we will be looking at this semester, I am going to take free reign to discuss a subject that was not specifically examined in the lecture.

Following this awesome video we viewed in class, I am inspired to look at presentations of gender in music, more specifically, 80's hair metal and glam metal.

                                 Poison, clearly got the headwear memo...

Recently I sat down and watched a 2005 documentary called Metal: A Headbanger's Journey. Written and directed by self confessed metal head Sam Dunn, it's an anthropological look at the subcultural appeal of heavy metal music. Dunn clearly knows his subject matter, so much so that VH1 commissioned him to expand his ideas and produce the 2011 follow up Metal Evolution.

                                       Whitesnake, tassels and no tops...

This second doco explored in greater detail the evolution of metal music, with specific episodes referring to evolving genres, leading us to Episode 5: Glam. However, I am not so much interested in the music itself, but the surrounding accoutrement. The blokes with big hair/perms, make up, pink jackets and leopard print pants - all items considered by todays mainstream society to belong within female identity categories. Crossley (2005) discusses 'social identity' vs 'personal identity', stating both are negotiated through interaction with others. In the case of 80's hair and glam metal frontmen, I think both are being negotiated with the audience. The hair and clothing are not only associated with the excess of the 80's, they identify the band member as 'rock star' to the audience, and through the performative element of dressing in this specific way, they reaffirm to the band member themself that they are a 'rock star'.

So does the articulation 80's hair/glam metal rockstar mean masculinity through a lens of femininity? 

In his introduction to the book Constructing Masculinity, Berger describes masculinity as being not limited to straightforward descriptions of maleness. He describes the subject positions occupied by genders in society as the intersection and articulation of many elements, in this case subcultural expectations (hair! fringed jackets! tight pants! make up!), social norms (80's excess and hedonism) and historical circumstances (men front metal bands).

                                    Axl Rose would like some reggae...

In this way, the presentation of these blokey blokes in feminine categories of apparel is mediated by social factors. Interestingly, many of the video clips put together by these bands feature women as a side note. They focus on doing something 'manly', like giving these pants a work out, homework issues or wearing a series of jumpsuits.

However, anyone who has viewed the sexualisation of the women that do exist in these filmclips (and lyrics) cannot deny that whilst not physically adhering to the m/f binary in terms of dress, these bands certainly uphold stereotypical m/f behavioural expectations for both rock stars and chauvinists with extreme egos. See exhibit A, exhibit B.

This music was (and still is in some subcultures) very popular, even in the mainstream to some extent. Sam Dunn's documentaries feature first hand accounts of how both men and women loved the style these bands flaunted, with 'men wanting to be them and women wanting to be with them'. More recent bands are emulating and parodying these styles, either in tribute to, or as adept cynical caricatures of, them. Designed to appeal to the hip pocket of hair and glam metal fans who never quite grew out of it.

                                     LA's Steel Panther formed in 2009

   However, critical discourse cannot attempt to explain everything...

References

Crossley, N 2005, 'Identity', Key Concepts in Critical and Social Theory, London: Sage, pp. 144-147.

Berger, M, Wallis, B & Watson, S (eds.) 2012, Constructing Masculinity, Taylor and Francis, 

Intro.

Hi y'all.

Welcome to my brand new blog, devised as part of my second year Gender class. I want to make it clear that I am no expert on any of these topics, and am an undergrad exploring many of these theories for the first time. My analysis and summaries are my opinions, not definitive stances or peer reviewed critiques!

This blog will most likely consist of ramblings on gender, an inordinate amount of memes and let's be honest, probably a lot of broken hyperlinks from my technologically challenged self.

I hope to discuss the class readings, raise questions on topical issues relating to gender and gender studies, and generally just piece together some of my thoughts and interests relating to these subjects that I find on my internet travels.

This is also my first ever crack at making a blog, wish me luck!

Here's a bonus meme for your enjoyment, woah nurse!