Exploration #3: Difference

“[Ads] create an environment – an environment that we all swim in, as fish swim in water. And just as it’s difficult to be healthy in a toxic physical environment, if we’re breathing poisoned air for example, or drinking polluted water. So it’s difficult to be healthy in what I call a ‘toxic cultural environment’ – an environment that surrounds us with unhealthy images….”

- Jean Kilbourne, Killing Us Softly 4

“Difference” exists in many forms: gender, race, age, intellect, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, physical appearance, character traits, professions, cultures, and personal preferences. Each of these differences denotes a way in which we are like or not like another person. People use these differences to assess themselves and others, as well as determine what is valuable and desirable and what is not. Unfortunately, these ideas of difference are cultural constructions rather than natural progressions of the process of the examination of self and other (Jhally 2009). As in most cultures attempting to assign categories for understanding various groups within and without, these constructions assign an image of “normal” that both alienates and deprives those who do not fit within these categories.

One group that continues to struggle with stereotypes, gender assumptions and expectations and harmful attacks on body image is the female athlete. Female athletes are a commodity, both in their gender and their ability to perform and entertain. Female athletes are objectified and criticized based on unfair and unrealistic constructions of gender. Too thin, too tall, too heavy, too short, too fat, too bitchy, too masculine, too muscular, too butch. These criticisms reinforce one of the most common stereotypes of female athletes: lesbian. Our culture encourages us to be uncomfortable with anyone who cannot fit into the socially prescribed categories of male and female. The "natural" (or rather trained) response of female athletes is to conform to social norms of femininity by over-feminizing themselves. They have learned how to "send out the correct codes"(Jhally 2009) to be accepted.

Below are two sets of images depicting female athletes: the desirables and the un-desirables.

The Desirables. The first set is a collage of images of women whose bodies are physically fit, celebrated, powerful and sexualized. A yogi, a runner, an athletic supermodel, an athletic professional, a skier, a dancer, and a swimmer. Each exudes strength, agility, healthiness, flexibility, stamina, intensity, endurance, and excellence. They are also highly sexualized in their poses, glances and expressions toward the audience (Jhally 2009), and their attire that accentuates each woman's incredible physique. These are desirable, healthy, sexy women. Women that are strong and powerful. Together they exhibit an ideal female athlete by current cultural constructions: feminine, beautiful, but non-threatening. These women are images from current magazines.

These same women now have been overlayed onto an advertisement (that I manipulated) that depicts how culture has been taught to view them: meat, an object for consumption with a price tag to be bought and sold at the whim and fancy of the consumer, the viewer, the audience. Although the group is much more intimidating than the singular images would be, as individuals they reinforce cultural ideas about women as submissive and subordinate (Jhally 2009). Four of the women are looking directly at us. Two have hidden faces. One is in profile. The women looking at us do so with what Jhally and Goffmann identify as a "licensed withdrawal." Their eyes appear to be looking in our direction but they are not paying attention to the world in which they have been assigned or the viewer enjoying that world. The women who are not looking at us are allowing us to look without the commitment of engagement, but rather simply to admire what is before us. The placement of hands and poses of their bodies indicate vulnerability as they serve no utilitarian function and the poses are unnatural and (in some cases) distorted. Although these women are confident, competent women within their field, they are reduced to images to be dissected like cuts of meat.(in some cases) distorted. Although these women are confident, competent women within their field, they are reduced to images to be dissected like cuts of meat.

Lastly, these same athletic women are displayed with an array of fresh, organic produce, the "natural choice." While their poses, expressions, and engagement with the viewer does not change. What we interpret and associate with the image does. These women are healthy and athletic. Motivation and  choice have shaped their figures. The positive connotations of the background call to mind clean living and diets, in a time when it is popular, trendy, and (fortunately) possible to easily live health conscious lives.

The Un-Desirables. The second group is a lesser known group of female athletes. These women do not appear in popular magazines. Their beauty, physique, and femininity are not used to sell products. The poses in which they appear do not render them vulnerable or sexualized. They are the undesirables. U.S. Olympic weight lifter Sarah Robles (first woman) and Holley Mangold were the the strongest women in the America in 2012. Robles could barely afford to compete in the London Olympics due to lack of funds. Her physical appearance deterred organizations/companies from offering her sponsorships. Despite their overwhelming qualifications, the women below  were denied sponsorships, media coverage and equitable treatment due to their body types and the misconception that "thin = fit and healthy." 

The reading of this image is very different the first "meat" image. The athletes are still a commodity. Superimposed over the image of meat, these women are subjected to the harsh stereotypes assigned to large women, women are appear to be unfit, or women whose body type isn't "perfect." Regardless of the fact that all four of these women are world class athletes that compete on the Olympic level, they are objectified not for their beauty and femininity but for their lack of.  

Are these women our "natural choice"? They are real, unedited, nonconforming to the cultural expectations, healthy women. Motivated by ambition, love of the sport, positive choices, these women refuse to allow the perceived ideas of their bodies hinder or deter them from what they want. 

In the Codes of Gender, Sut Jhally states “there is nothing natural or biological about gender or gender identity.” Women, just like men, are "athletes." The term "female" should not be relevant in their ability to perform and excel. What does a "female athlete" look like? All of these women. All women. Thin, tall, heavy, short, large, small, muscular, short hair, long hair... Appearance does not determine ability and skill anymore than biology determines gender.

Kilbourne challenges “get involved in whatever moves [you] to change not just these ads but these attitudes that run so deep in our culture and that affect each one of us so deeply, whether we’re conscious of it or not. The changes have to be profound and global and they’ll depend upon an aware, active, and educated public—a public that thinks of itself primarily as citizens rather than primarily as consumers.”

Resources:
The Codes of Gender: Identity and Performance in Pop Culture 2009, 73 min. http://pennstate.kanopystreaming.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/node/41623

Dietrich, L. (2012, August 10). Criticism of Female Olympians' Bodies Harms Athletes. Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://www.aauw.org/2012/08/10/criticism-of-female-olympians-bodies-harms-athletes/

Killing Us Softly 4: Advertising's Image of Women 2010, 46 min.
http://pennstate.kanopystreaming.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/node/41635
Michael Kimmel: On Gender 2008, 55 min. http://pennstate.kanopystreaming.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/node/41507

Saner, E. (2008, July 28). The gender trap. Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2008/jul/30/olympicgames2008.gender

Exploration #2: Cultural Artifacts

iPhone 6

In selecting my cultural artifact, I began with an object so ingrained in our everyday lives it seems to have become an extension of our very bodies.  The iPhone. What are some contemporary and personal meanings encoded in this object? A connection to everything needed throughout the day. For me, it is my husband, my school-aged child, my sister, my mother, my students, my calendar, the News, my interests, my momentary musings. This device is my repository of pictures, videos, contacts, data, budgets, most frequented online shopping spots, ideas, and music. It is my navigation system both physically and emotionally. The iPhone has become an extension of my person, my hand, my fingers. I turn to it during my leisure time, down time. It serves as a welcome distraction, an escape. I never leave home without it.

Smart phones, particularly the iPhone, represent connectivity. These devices break down the barriers of time and space, language and culture. iPhones speak a global language and open the lines of communication and exploration between groups that otherwise would remain isolated. While they come in a beautiful slick non-gendered package, each owner seeks to express herself by personalizing the exterior and interior with skins, protective cases, wallpapers, screens, apps and keyboards. 

iPhones are so embedded in our culture that imagining life without them is as foreign as looking to the Encyclopedia Britannica as the primary source of information on any given topic. Although, my personal investigations started with the iPhone, I chose an older, but related, artifact to continue my discussion.

This rotary phone is an old version with the "guts" removed for my children's use. 

The rotary phone. This image of an “antique” phone (as one of my high school students described it) represents a simplified idea of how a phone functions today. It marks a moment in the technological evolution of the telephone. It is neither the beginning nor the end, but rather somewhere in between. At the time of its popularity, this object was used to communicate, personally and professionally with people in close proximity, cross-continentally, or internationally.

The year 1919 marked the beginning of the rotary phone era. After WWII, Henry Dreyfuss created the shape in the image above that would dominate the visual form of the rotary form for most of its lifetime. Rotary phones (and phones in general) initially appeared only in the homes of the wealthy and installation of one into the home was a sign of status. As their popularity spread, cities and suburbs began to see phones in homes. Rural areas were often excluded due to a lack of infrastructure. In the beginning, phones all shared a similar appearance to the original black model. However, as phones became more accessible, the styles became more individualized. Such an example is the princess phone that was popular among women.

This is an image depicting a "French Phone" like the one my grandmother gave me as a teenager. This image is part of my personal experience with the rotary phone and part of my reason for selecting this image.  

Unfortunately, the 1960s mark the beginning of the end for rotary phones as they were slowly replaced by newer touch-tone technology (Roberts). However, these phones can still be found in homes of "hold outs" today (my grandparents included).

The subjects asked to respond to this image were forced to look back at their own memories or the memories of others in order to interpret the meaning of the object. I asked eleven people to respond to the images, 5 male and 6 female, ranging in age from 18 to 72 of mixed socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicities, and sexual orientations. The responses gathered from this exercise illustrate how “meanings of objects are derived from a continuum of memories” (Boyd, Amburgy, and Knight, 2007 p 20) and support the idea that “memory is never objective and fixed; rather it is subjective and fluid” (Boyd, Amburgy, and Knight, 2007 p. 20). One respondent, a 29 year old Vietnamese woman, replied “I associate communication, advancement, connectedness, relationship and help with this image. I also associate a period of time with it that seems a little more simple and probably a little magical because we weren’t part of it.” She credited her “personal interaction with phones, history class, [her] background and classes in communication studies, museums, books and personal observation and reflection” as the sources for such a statement. Her “magical” experience was evoked by movies, readings about the periods in which this older technology was popular and a general since of “wonder and curiosity” for things of old. Several of those I asked recalled seeing these types of phones used as props in period piece movies and television shows. One women noted the sexuality found in a beautifully manicured hand dialing on a rotary phone from a popular television show. 

One older gentleman reflected on moments of “sitting and talking, devoting time to speaking with another…in kitchen nooks.” Another recalled it as his primary connection to his distant grandmother and noted the large amount of time spent in conversation with her on such a phone.The women in these memories are 1950s housewives, pictures of domesticity with the latest technology dangling from their ear. These memories evoke an image of white middle class American women gossiping away on their phones.

The sense of nostalgia and familiarity this object evokes is telling of both the primary user of the phone as well as the marketing of the telephone at this time to women in the home. Of course, the phone was transformative for businesses as it increased the numbers of persons that could be accessed on any given day. However, the most widely associated person (from an image search and those I showed the image to) is the housewife, mother, grandmother, a female figure. Memories from my own childhood include my mother talking on the phone "for hours." 

However, the domestic housewife was not (and is not) the only subject of these images. My search revealed working class women and even pin-ups talking on these phones. In her article "Shaping the American Women: Feminism and Advertising in the 1950s," Christina Catalona calls attention to a group of feminists that identify "the 1950s as the pinnacle of gender inequality"(Catalona 2002, 45) claiming that "mass media especially advertising in women's magazines, perpetuated the denigration of women" (Catalona 45). While women in this era are portrayed in a variety of other occupations, the primary usage for the phone image appears to be the home and the switchboard or secretarial position. However, in both, women are presented as prim and proper objects of beauty to be looked upon and appreciated for their aesthetics. 

A younger female noted the irony of this image as she confessed to feeling connected to this phone with a cord whose purpose was to remain stationary. She states “I felt more freedom when I used a phone like this than my fancy smart phone that remains with me wherever I go.” Pondering this image, she journeyed back to a “time when I used to run around the lawn in a t-shirt and no shoes playing in the mud and getting dirty. We didn’t watch TV or play video games. We played outside and hunted for lost treasure in the creek behind my parents’ house. We didn’t worry about what so and so said about us to hurt our feelings or whether they were our friend on facebook. We had each other that’s what mattered most.” Her connection to these images are not necessarily gendered but rather class related. Growing up in a poor rural area, these memories of a time gone by are ideals. They are memories shaped by what she knows today and what she thinks she remembers about yesterday. A time when she was too young recognize class divides. Or that the phone in her home was not the newest technology. 

A male subject, age 30, reminisced of using “one at my grandmother’s house as a child” and noted “the competence it takes to use one would probably be lost on current children.” Searching for current readings of this image and illustrations of the out-dated technology, I uncovered an interaction between children of varying ages, gender and ethnicities interacting with a rotary phone. What is revealed is both amusing and indicative of the culturally obsolete quality of the device as well as a dying telephone jargon. 

Another male also associated the image with his grandparents as “they were the only ones to have this still in their home and in use” even today. His response was that the technology was “outdated” just as grandparents are often considered “outdated members of society.” 

One respondent noted the “form signifies its function” or lack there of as he mused on the roles that phones play in our lives today. Phones today are our connections with the world. They are keep us connected with our friends, family, activities, and information. Phones allow us to know and understand the world around us on a global level. 

Just in case you did not already know, here is a "how to" for the telephone...not to be confused with a cellphone.... 

Resources: 

Catalano, Christina (2002) "Shaping the American Woman: Feminism and Advertising in the 1950s," Constructing the Past: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 6.

Keifer-Boyd, K., Amburgy, P. M., & Knight, W. B. (2007). Unpacking privilege: Memory, culture, gender, race, and power in visual culture. Art Education, 60(3), 19–24.

Martin, D. (1994, January 10). Rotary Pay Phones Return, This Time to Foil Drug Deals. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/10/nyregion/rotary-pay-phones-return-this-time-to-foil-drug-deals.html

Roberts, William Lee. “Western Electric A look at the evolution of the Dial Telephone.” http://www.arctos.com/dial/

Rotary phones ring true for few. (n.d.). Sacramento Business Journal. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2001/03/12/focus3.html

This Attention Deficit World: Frantic, Free, and Out of Control. (n.d.). Retrieved September 26, 2014, from http://www.enotalone.com/health/5651.html