What Do Magritee, Ed O'Neill, and Bret Easton Ellis Have in Common?

“The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it's just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture ‘This is a pipe,’ I'd have been lying”

-René Magritte, on his work La Trahison Des Images (1928)


A seminal work of 20th century surrealist painter, René Magritte, The Treachery of Images clearly depicts a tobacco pipe and the corresponding caption: “This is not a pipe.” As unassuming as this small work of art may seem, one could argue that this piece does an excellent job of embodying all that is Postmodern: It is self-reflexive; it is both paradoxical and humorously ironic; it displays a simple picture and message, yet its implications are profoundly deep. It would appear that Magritte has clearly painted a pipe for the viewer to see; yet, the cleverly crafted language below it denies the existence of said pipe. Indeed, one can see how Magritte is correct, as his painting only depicts a representation of a pipe.

But was Magritte entirely accurate in the choice of his caption? If one were to define a pipe as a three-dimensional object that can have tobacco stuffed in it, then yes—it would appear that Magritte was correct. But, if one defines a pipe only as a brown, s-shaped object, then indeed a very nice pipe lies right at the top of this piece of paper. Herein lies a major issue with language, an issue that Magritte is able to toy with so cleverly: Language is entirely open to an interpretation dictated by its surroundings.

Take, for example, the sound of the word “cat:” an American might interpret it to represent a fuzzy mammal; someone from France might take it to represent the number 4; A sailor might believe it to be the abbreviation for a catamaran. Essentially, the meaning of language is wholly dictated by the culture it is being received in. In his work Cultural Studies, author Chris Barker claims that the converse is also true.

Speaking on Semiotics, Barker, paraphrasing the work of Saussure, claims that “To understand culture is to explore how meaning is produced symbolically through the signifying practices of language” (Barker, 76), and perhaps no current creation of culture embodies the subtleties of this statement more so than does Modern Family, a television sitcom aired by ABC.

In the pilot episode of the series, Hailey Dunphy’s boyfriend comes to meet her parents for the first time. As Hailey’s boyfriend enters the house, her father, Phil, attempts to speak to the boyfriend in a manner he feels is culturally relatable: “Sweet. Let me meet this playa. (offers fist bump) Phil Dunphy, yo” (Leviton and Lloyd, 13). Here, Phil is altering the words he is uttering, the signifier(s), in an attempt to communicate what he means, or the signified (Barker, 76). By using the vernacular of Hip-Hop, Phil is attempting to alter his language to portray that he is cool, with-the-times, and willing to embrace culture from below—all in hopes of winning the respect of Hailey’s boyfriend. In fact, and ironically so, Phil’s efforts have the exact opposite effect. Take a look at this clip for more proof (ABC has disabled embedding, so I can't put the video directly in the blog):
Nevertheless, Phil's actions do reinforce Barkers claims of the inextricably linked nature of culture and the signifying practices of language.

Another equally comically exchange occurs when Jay Pritchett, father of twelve-year-old Manny, is distraught that Manny is about to read a love poem to a sixteen year old girl:

JAY
I'm just saying, it's not a crime to
leave some thoughts unexpressed.

GLORIA
Like you do, you mean.

JAY
No, not like -- well yeah, like me.
Like a man. A man knows it's not
appropriate to go around showing
your emotion all the time.

MANNY
I want to tell Brenda Feldman I love
her.

JAY
Oh for Crissakes (Leviton and Lloyd, 13).

In Jay’s struggle to define the signifier “a man,” he inadvertently sheds light on two other cultural views of his: The first, being that women often “go around showing [their] emotion,” and second, that he believes this to be a negative attribute. Simone de Beauvoir, author of The Second Sex (1949) would argue that Jay’s belief, the belief women inappropriately express their emotion, is completely and wholly arbitrary: “It is often said that she [woman] thinks with her glands. Man superbly ignores the fact that his anatomy also includes glands, such as the testicles, and that they secrete hormones” (de Beauvior, 2). Jay also has emotions dictated by his hormones. Yet, society has come to deem male reaction to hormones as the norm and female reactions to hormones as illogical. Hence, Jay is able to comfortably say that man is appropriate where woman is inappropriate, and he does so, seemingly, without violating any societal mores.

Not surprisingly, this social inequality that de Beauvior calls to attention is no new phenomenon to grace American screens, as even in 1964, when Guy Hamilton’s Goldfinger came to American theatres, James Bond was treating women in the same fashion that Jay Pritchett does today. Throughout the film, Bond constantly belittles women, as is evident when, nine minutes into the film, he slaps Dink on the behind to bid her goodbye while he attends to “Man talk.”

Although it may seem that the blame for the re-enforcement of this social dichotomy stems from American cinema and television, this is hardly the case. Literary works are some of the oldest and most egregious perpetrators of casting distinct gender roles. As early as William Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew (1594), McLuskie (as paraphrased by Barker) viewed that Shakespeare portrayed the role of woman as “commodities within a pattern of luxury consumption and aristocratic lifestyle” (Barker, 309). Even today, this viewpoint is reflected in Bret Easton Ellis’ The Rules of Attraction (1987). The characters in Ellis’ novel attend the Camden College, a school where most of the attendees come from financially privileged backgrounds. Accordingly, the thoughts of the character Sean seem to echo the gist of McLuskie’s views:

“Or, I can take this girl off-campus to the Carousel for a drink, leave her there. Or, I can take her back to my room, hope the Frog is gone, get stoned and fuck her. […] but the hot looking Freshman has already left with Mitchell and I don’t have any classes tomorrow and it’s late and it looks like the keg’s running out” (Ellis, 18).

In Sean’s most pure and unadulterated thoughts, we can indeed see that he views the role of woman as a commodity. He does not muse about how he plans to speak with them or perhaps get to know them; the language he uses focuses solely on how he can generate utility from their use.

Although these isolated examples might paint a bit of a depressing picture regarding the state of affairs in modern gender politics, it is important to remember that shows such as Modern Family and novels such as The Rules of Attraction often aim to remedy inequalities rather than perpetuate them. By placing the actions of their characters under such scrutiny, whether it be Phil, Jay, or even Sean, the authors make their foibles all to obvious. The lasting effect of this scrutiny is that the viewer is often reminded, quite comically at times, of what not to do.

Works Cited:

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2008. Print.

de Beauvoir, Simone. "The Second Sex: Woman as Other (1949)." Marxists Internet Archive. Web. 02 Aug. 2011.

Ellis, Bret Easton. The Rules of Attraction. New York: Vintage Contemporaries, 1998. Print.

Levitan, Steven, and Christopher Lloyd. "Pilot." Modern Family. ABC. Sept. 2009. Web. 22 Aug. 2011. .

Magritte, Renée. La Trahison Des Images. 1929. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web.


"The Treachery of Images." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 23 Aug. 2011. .
 

Goo Goo for Gaga?

Perhaps no pop-icon in the past decade has generated as media much buzz as has Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, or, as she is more commonly known, Lady Gaga. Part of Lady Gaga’s allure is due to the ridiculous spectacle with she presents herself to the public: her costumes are, to put it liberally, over the top; her entrances attention seeking; the amount of electricity that her concert performances draw could most likely power a developing democracy for a week.

In addition to the amount of favorable media attention Lady Gaga has been granted, she has been given equally positive treatment by social institutions and her ever-expanding fan base, who laud her for purportedly using her pop-icon status to effect social change. For example, in her song “Born This Way” (2011), she states:

No matter gay, straight, or bi,
lesbian, transgendered life,
I'm on the right track baby,
I was born to survive.
No matter black, white or beige
Chola or orient made,
I'm on the right track baby,
I was born to be brave.

Or, if you are brave enough, skip to 5:30:




Here, Gaga seeks to empower those who have been marginalized, either due to their sexuality, ethnicity, or race, telling them to be brave and proudly accept who they are as human beings. Although I personally could not agree more with this message, one could pose that Gaga’s message stems not from an altruistic place of wanting to effect social change (as her fans believe it does), but rather as a means of generating profit on songs for herself and her record labels. In paraphrasing the works of Theodor Arno and Max Horkheimer, Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan state: “mass culture […] is a tool of domination, a way for capitalism to offer ephemeral gratification to people condemned to lives of work” (Rivkin and Ryan, 1026). In short, objects of popular culture—in this case Gaga’s “Born This Way,” are created not for any altruistic social value, but for purchase and consumption. Secondly, Gaga’s creations offer no real social effects, but only give ephemeral release from, in the case of Gaga’s listeners, their possible societal marginalization.

So, is it true that Lady Gaga first and foremost attempts to be a profit machine? As it happens, her financial success is just as equally impressive as her success within the media. Her albums have reached number one chart positions in six different countries, she has had two wildly popular global concert tours, and more recently, her single “Born This Way has had the distinction of “being the fastest-selling single in the history of iTunes,” selling over one million copies in only five days. In sum, Gaga brings in some serious dough.

But perhaps one could argue that Lady Gaga does not have to be either focused solely on generating profit or solely trying to effect social change. Along the lines of Stuart Hall, who I personally happen to agree with on this issue, Lady Gaga could embody more of a postmodern subject: “The postmodern subject involves the subject in shifting fragmented and multiple identities. Persons are composed not of one but of several, sometimes contradictory, identities” (Barker, 220). Although Lady Gaga may well be attempting to draw in large sums of money from her creations, this is by no means mutually exclusive to effecting social change. She can attempt both, and the desires to do both can reside inside her. In sum, we can now blissfully return to listening to Gaga, knowing that both capitalism and the pursuit of societal equality can remain harmoniously in tact.



Works Cited:


Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2008. Print.

"Lady Gaga." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 23 Aug. 2011. .

"LADY GAGA LYRICS - Born This Way." A-Z Lyrics Universe. Web. 23 Aug. 2011. .

Rivkin, Julie, and Machael Ryan, eds. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.

James Bond in Goldfinger, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying that my Childhood Hero Was a Sex Offender and Contribute to a Group Project

I was eleven-and-a-half years old. It was the summer between 5th and 6th Grade. After coming home from the office one evening, my mother presented me with a present, a bit of a surprise to me seeing as I felt I had done nothing to warrant this gift. Nevertheless, I accepted her gift and proceeded to open it, tearing away at the wrapping paper in typical eleven-and-a-half year old fashion.

A large box with the words “James Bond Anniversary Set,” or something along those lines, labeled the front of the box. I opened the box to see 4 VHS tapes lined neatly inside; the first three Bond films and one about the making of Goldfinger.

My mother proceeded to tell me that she received the tapes a while ago at work, and she believed that I was now old enough to watch them.

“Being old enough to watch them” surely meant, to my eleven-and-a-half year old self, that they were filled with all the awesome things that my socially liberal parents normally tried to shield me from –awesome things like violence and explosions and girls and bad words—so I proceed to thank my mother very graciously before grabbing the box set and heading to our VHS player.
“You can’t watch them tonight, though,” my mother called. “If you watch those movies this late you wont be able to fall asleep.”

That was probably the worst thing my mother could have said to me. I spent the entire evening tossing in my bed and waiting for the morning to come, itching to watch these grown-up films that I had finally been granted permission to view.

The morning came, and I was not disappointed.

James Bond: He was suave. He had the most awesome gadgets. He escaped death and foiled evil geniuses time and time again, and he always managed to charm two or three stunningly beautiful women along the way. But maybe the awe-inspiring characteristic of James Bond was how confidence seemed to ooze from every inch of his impeccably tailored physique all the time; he was never wrong. As an eleven-and-a half-year-old boy, I made a promise to myself, right then, that I would one day be James Bond. That summer I made it my mission to see every film and know everything there was to know about James Bond.

James Bond certainly had an Impact on my childhood. Today my idolatry of the James Bond figure has certainly cooled, but I do still love the series and never miss an opportunity to watch one of the older films when they roll on to TV. So, when the film Goldfinger came up as an option for a group project in a Popular Culture class that I was taking, I sprung to the occasion to have watching and analyzing one of my favorite films of all time, as homework.

Specifically, my assignment was to cosider how Goldfinger portrayed constructions of class, race, gender, nationalism, and so on. To contribute to my group, I chose to focus specifically on how the film represented the social relationship between the male and female genders. I figured this would be simple enough to do, as bond usually has at least a few flames in each film. Little did I know this seemingly innocent assignment would scar my perception of a childhood hero forever.

At about nine minutes into the film the viewer is presented with the first construct of the male-female social relation. James Bond (Sean Connery) is being massaged by a woman named “Dink,” but when American agent Felix Leighter (Cec Linder) comes to speak to Bond, he immediately dismisses Dink, telling her that she needs to go so that they can attend to “Man talk.” As she turns to walk away, Bond gives her a firm slap on the behind as a devilish grin shoots across his face.

Hardly two minutes later, Bond forcefully grabs a room key from a female hotel maid, saying to her: “You’re very sweet.” He uses this key to enter Goldfinger’s hotel room, where he finds Jill Masterson (Shirley Eaton) lying in a bikini. He proceeds to walk over to Masterson, and corners her on the balcony where she is lying. Three minutes later, Bond has apparently seduced Masterson, as she utters: “I’m beginning to like you Mr. ?”
“Bond, James Bond” He replies.

I was appalled –taken aback— shocked, I would say. I knew that James Bond had always taken certain liberties with women that might not be socially acceptable by today’s standards, but watching Goldfinger again from a Cultural Studies perspective had proven in a very convincing manor that my childhood idol had some blatantly misogynistic tendencies. Despite the psychological pain I felt as the image of my childhood hero was tarnished before my eyes, for the sake of my group, I pushed forth with my cultural analysis:

Bond’s interaction with Dink reflects an attitude of patriarchal superiority and an objectified view of women as a physical commodity echoing the works of both Cantor, regarding the purpose of Television (film in this case), and McLuskie, on his views regarding Shakespeare’s treatment of women in The Taming of the Shrew.

Chris Barker, in paraphrasing the works of Cantor notes that the primary role of films discourse on gender relations may be to “support the main institution of the patriarchal oppression of women” (48). James Bond’s actions reflect this in a strikingly clear manor. In his interactions, whether with Dink, Masterson, or later Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman), James Bond always gets his way, dismissing physically at times, the wills and opinions of his female companions. The fact that he dismisses Dink because he has to attend to “Man talk” reinforces the fact that he considers female perspective as having less validity than that of the male.

Secondly, it becomes obvious that besides often carrying an attitude of patriarchal superiority, Bond often views women primarily as a sexual object and commodity akin to how McLuskie (as paraphrased by Barker) viewed that Shakespeare portrayed the role of woman as “commodities within a pattern of luxury consumption and aristocratic lifestyle” (309). From the make of his car to his finely tuned knowledge of bourbon, Bond embodies all that is luxury and aristocracy, and unfortunately his treatment of women as a commodity indeed follows suit. The most egregious and physical manifestation of this occurs at when bond wrestles Galore into the ground (skip to 1:45):



Bond sports at least one plaything per film, and their names somehow often seem to reflect their objectified status, whether it be Pussy Galore, Kissy Suzuki, or Xenia Onatopp (Click here for the full list of Bond Girls).

Although I will never be able to see a James Bond film in quite the same way, I eagerly anticipate the release of Bond film 23 coming in 2012. It will be directed by Sam Mendes, who also happend to direct American Beauty, one of my all-time favorite films.

Works Cited:

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2008. Print.

How Herbalife ™ Ruined What Would Have Ordinarily Been a Pleasant and Productive Saturday.

I am unabashedly proud of the fact that I was born and raised in Santa Monica California. We have the top grossing Prius Dealership in the Nation. We have a nice Pier and lots of Palm trees. The City boasts that are fewer than 50 gang members in the entirety of Santa Monica (although I question the accuracy of this statistic, as I personally was never surveyed). But, above all, my personal favorite cultural attribute of Santa Monica is the fervent love of exercise and physical fitness its resident’s posses.

I believe that the combination of Santa Monica’s proximity to Hollywood coupled with its 3.5 miles of pacific coastline breeds a unique culture; a culture that hybridizes the onus that Hollywood places on person image with the fitness and muscle-building culture that was born out of Venice Beach. In fact, many multi-national fitness companies, for example Beachbody LLC (creator of the P90x and INSANITY workout series) are headquartered right in Santa Monica.

Given Santa Monica’s mild climate and average of 300 days of sunshine per-year, many residents choose to workout outside rather than in a gym; my personal favorite outdoor workout spot is a long set of stairs that start at Adelaide Drive and have a beautiful view of the Pacific Ocean and the cliffs that flank it. I’ve been coming to The Stairs to workout for a few years now, and I like to divide the people that come to the stairs: There are the regulars and locals who walk to The Stairs to get their normal workout (such as myself, and Owen, there are the transient type that come with a friend or because they saw The Stairs’ respectably high rating on Yelp, and lastly there those who workout at the stairs solely to be seen by others (Matthew McConaughey).

For your edification:


This summer, I became friends with Vysal, who I met at The Stairs in late June. Vysal is in very good shape. We got to talking about fitness, as many Stair regulars often do, and he invited me to come down and try a free Beach Boot Camp Clinic that happens on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7:15 at the beach.

I began to attend these group morning workouts and absolutely loved them. The people were energized, it was a fantastic way to start the day, and the workouts themselves were great. Although the entire Beach Boot Camp is completely free, it is sponsored by Herbalife – which really had no effect to me other than the fact that a lot of the people who attended the workouts would drink Herbalife drinks before and after working out.

I continued to come to these workouts quite regularly and began to become friends with a lot of the attendees. At around 9:00 AM two weeks ago, as I was walking back to my car after a particularly tough workout, one of the organizers of the Boot Camp approached me, thanked me for the hard work I had been putting in, and asked me if I would be interested in “joining their team” to become one of their boot camp coaches.

I was thrilled. I was elated. I said yes. It was one of those moments were I felt the all of the discipline and hard work that I had put in was finally noticed by someone else. I had put in a lot of hard training this Summer, and having someone else validate my physical fitness made me even prouder of what I had personally set out to achieve. But, as the saying goes, pride comes before the fall.

To join the team, I would first be required to come to an “Intro to Coaching” seminar the following Saturday. I was requested to wear business casual to this training and show up promptly at 9:00 AM Saturday morning. I drove to the location, rummaging through mind what I knew about fitness – glycogen storage, aerobic versus anaerobic execercise, type II versus type I muscle fiber – stuff I had accumulated from years of competitive sports, and I was excited to prove to the coaching staff that I knew a bunch of stuff already but was eager to learn more. Unfortunately, no sooner did I arrive than did my confusion begin.

First, the room was full of 80 people, about 10 of whom I recognized from the Beach Boot Camp – the other 70 or so I had never seen before. “That’s odd…” I mused. “Have they asked all these people to be fitness coaches too? Some of them aren’t even that fit…” Nevertheless, I started talking to one of these ‘other 70’ people, a boy named Jake who seemed about my age. I asked him if he had been coming to the beach workouts earlier in the summer, because I didn’t recognize him. He gave me a quizzical look, and replied: “I’m here because of the Craigslist add about making money fast. What beach workouts are you talking about?

Something was up. But I had had no time to delve into the matter further. The presentation was about to start, and I needed to grab a seat before they were all taken. The presentation began.

First, we heard testimonials from people who had lost significant amount of weight by sticking to Herbalife’s nutrition plan. Then, we learned about the founding of Herbalife and its CEO and the wonderful philosophy that the company has about fitness and well-being. Next, we took a ten minute break to sample the Herbalife products.

“This shake is actually really good, and most of the people here seem pretty nice, but when are we going to actually talk about fitne –“ My thoughts were interrupted. There was an announcement through the PA informing us of how the day would progress: first, we would learn how to start changing lives by getting our first two clients on Herbalife. Then we would delve into how to keep expanding our client base. Lastly, we would be shown how easy it is to climb up the Herbalife corporate ladder with diligence and hard work.

That’s when it hit me: There would be no fitness training. This was not a fitness-training seminar. This was a seminar on how to make money by selling Herbalife products. So many people at the beach workouts had been drinking Herbalife because they were on a training program given to them by one of the fitness coaches.

I was angry. I had sincerely thought that the coaches who invited me had wanted me to join their team because I was enthusiastic and dedicated to fitness. They had wanted me to join their team because they wanted me to buy a bunch of Herbalife products so that I could sell them to my friends (they get a profit when I do that)

I realized this at about 9:45 AM. The seminar lasted until 2:00 PM. I wasted 5 hours on a beautiful July Saturday learning about how to sell Herbalife. Five hours watching videos like this:




Five hours which I will never, ever, ever get back. I should have left after 45 minutes.

Thus ends my saga. Now, to delve into all this from a juicy, Cultural Studies perspective:

The first question that comes to mind, for me, is exactly what type of type of person has the time to delve into the copious and time consuming exercise routines that most of these fitness couches pursue. In her work "'Material Girl:' The Effacements of Postmodern Culture," Susan Bordo argues that those who have the time and financial means to pursue their ideal body often come from a more privileged financial class: "The precision technology of body-sculpting, once the secret of the Arnold Schwarzeneggers and Rachel McLishes of the professional body-building world, has now become available to anyone who can afford the price of membership in a gym" (Bordo, 1100). A gym membership is certianily not a commodity that every American can afford, and in this case, the commodity of time is just is valuable. Whether working out at The Stairs, or running the various beach workout sessions, being a Fitness Coach takes a very large time commitment - one that would be impossible to hold down while working a full-time job. Thus, it has become clear to me that a majority of these Fitness Coaches are financially well off to begin with, or, in some cases, selling Fitness (and their body image), has become their full-time occupation.

Bordo Continues, noting "the breezy analogies comparing cosmetic surgery" (or in this case having the money to buy Herbalife products) "to fashion accessorizing are deeply mystifying. They efface, not only the inequalities of privilege, money, and time that prohibit most people from indulging in these practices, but the desperation that characterizes the lives of those who do" (1100). Bordo later inserts a rather pogniant testimony: "I will do anything, anything, to make myself look and feel better" (Tina Lizardi, 1101). Herbalife has positioned itself to profit handsomely on the desires of people like Ms. Lizardi. It promises to be the missing puzzle piece on the journey to achieving that ever elusive body - only assuming that you have copious amounts of time to excercise and hundreds of dollars a month to spend of Herbalife products.

In closing, I would be remiss to exclude my belief that Herbalife system seems to mirror a Marxian Capatalist Dynamic: "Those who own the means of production" (Herbalife-Pushing Fitness Coaches) profit handsomely from "those who must sell their labor to survive" (Average, working class American who attmept to get in shape by using Herbalife products) (Baker, 13). Most people will not be able to afford the time and money that Herbalife demands to sculpt that perfect body. But those who do have the time and money to achieve the perfect figure will profit handsomely by selling Herbalife to those who don't.

Herein ends my Herbalife bashing. Now for a bit of anti-essetialism:

As much as I resent Herbalife for wasting five hours of my Saturday and for emptying the pockets of well meaning Americans, their products are fantastic - really. I decided to give their product line a try this Summer as a supplement to my normal workout routine. I have seen very mesurable results, the most notable being cutting 12 minutes of of my half-marathon time and dropping my body fat by almost 3 percentage points.






Works Cited:

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2008. Print.

Bordo, Susan. 'Material Girl: The Effacements of Postmodern Culture, Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998

Who Loves Jerry McGuire?

Cameron Crowe’s Romantic Comedy Jerry McGuire, although probably best known for its satirical depiction of life in a fast-paced sports agency and memorable line of “show me the money,” belted out by NFL hopeful Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding Jr.), Jerry McGuire also does a very respectable job of hitting on all the cliché constructions of love that Americans enjoy watching.

Here is the clip, because it is truly fantastic:


As the movie opens, Jerry McGuire (Tom Cruise) is engaged to Avery Bishop (Kelly Preston), and it becomes obvious to the audience that their relationship is most likely doomed to fail, as their relationship appears to be built solely on physical attraction and a love of money. Indeed it fails, as Cruise is first fired from his work, and later blows a deal with a potentially lucrative client. Their relationship ends in a pretty comical altercation, as Preston smacks Cruise in the face after Cruise dumps her for not being supportive enough.

At this point, the character of Dorothy Boyd (Renée Zellweger), has already been introduced, and as Cruise’s relationship with Preston comes to a close, his relationship with Zellweger begins to heat up. Zellweger was initially drawn to, or even childishly enamored with, Cruise when he published a soul-bearing altruistic manifesto, “The Things We Think and Do Not Say: The Future of Our Business," which ultimately gets Cruise fired from his position at his agency.

This following series of relationships, character development, and conceptions of love eerily echo what McDonald outlines in Chapter 3 of ‘The Sex Comedy” as a typical 1950s ‘Sex Comedy’ plot: Only when a man “ceases to be the sexually aggressive he-man he has habitually been” can he win his woman over by “becoming nicer, more loving […] the insights he has gained while not being a wolf” (McDonald, 48). Crowe is attempting to illustrate that being fired from his job, blowing a deal, and loosing his fiancée has caused Cruise to hit rock bottom. The only way Cruise can climb back out out is through becoming a more sensitive, father-like figure.

Crowe’s portrayal of love is right in line with most other typical romantic American comedies. First, it is heterosexual. Secondly, for love to exist, the successful, powerful male must attract an emotionally weaker woman, but only once the man learns a bit of humility can the couple co-exist happily. Furthermore, women who yearn for success, money or power, typically male attributes, are demonized and doomed to fail.

Lastly, it should be noted that Crowe uses the nuclear family as a stabilizing mechanism in all of the movies successful relationships. Part of the reason Cruise ultimately stays with Zellweger is due to the relationship he develops with her son, Ray, (Jonathan Lipnicki). Secondly, Gooding Jr.’s family is portrayed as a boisterous but extremely loving African American family, serving as an extremely solid support system for Gooding Jr. and his career. Cultural studies historian Cantor would believe that this is a classic and cliché depiction of a functional American family, suggesting that “we seek solutions to social problems within the family (by making it responsible for ‘crime’ or ‘social care’ (Baker, 48). Along these lines, Crowe too appears to suggest that the family is the best support structure to turn to when the going gets tough.

Its classic portrayals of love and relationships aside, I do think that Jerry McGuire is a terrific and enjoyable film. Maybe I’ve been duped think in just that manor, but, for now, that’s ok with me.

Works Cited:


Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2008. Print.

McDonald. Chapter 3: “The Sex Comedy.”

A Santa Monica Ethnography - Pete's Coffee

July 25,th 2011 – 7:30 AM

Lined neatly with Ficus trees, hybrid vehicles, and a medley of restaurants, coffee shops and retail stores, a sleepy Montana Avenue cuts right through the through the northern edge of Santa Monica, and Santa Monica likes to wake up with coffee. One ½ mile stretch of Montana avenue between 7th Street and 15th Street manages to nestle six unique coffee stops: three Starbucks, two independent coffee houses, and one Pete’s Coffee, all of which have significant lines by 7:30 AM. I’ve chosen to sit with my skim cappuccino right outside of Pete’s coffee at the corner of 14th Street and Montana Avenue. It is a July Monday in Santa Monica, and the temperature sits at pleasant 65 degrees while the summer heat is kept at bay by the groggy marine-layer.

The 7:30 coffee crowd is looking to get their pre-work jolt. All the customers are dressed smartly: some in suits, most just wearing business casual and sporting an iPhone or Blackberry. At this point, the crowd seems to be about 70% male, 30% female, the average age appearing to rest somewhere between 30 and 50 years. The movement of people and out of Pete’s remains steady and constant, but at 7:50 AM new phenomenon begins.

Women in their late twenties to early forties begin to appear, dressed without fail in black, athletic leggings and a brightly colored athletic top, ready to show up to the 8:00 AM workout at one of the three workout studios on Montana Avenue (yoga, Pilates or spinning to chose from). The women chat happily with one another as they make there way to their exercise studio of choice.

As 8:15 rolls around, the line at Pete’s begins to shorten (temporarily) and the hum of young professionals and pre-workout chatter is replaced by the growing bustle of traffic on Montana Avenue. Dogs begin to show up on the streets, some being walked, others being jogged, stores and restaurants begin the process of opening, and that sleepy marine-layer begins to be challenged by the first rays of the sun.

At the corner of 15th and Montana lies one of Santa Monica’s two Whole Foods, and from I sit I have a clear view of the parking lot. At around 8:35, I watch a new Lexus coupe narrowly miss backing into a truck making its morning delivery. As the coupe makes its way out of the parking lot, I see straight through the driver’s side window. The driver was most certainly texting.
To his credit, this is what he has to deal with (shot in mostly in this same Whole Foods)





Things remain more or less the same on Montana until 9:00 rolls around: A new group of women dressed in athletic garb comes to replace the dignifiedly sweaty group that is leaving, but more interesting is a new group of women in late twenties to thirties (and some men, although few) shuttling their children into the preschool that lies just down the block from Pete’s. It’s around this time that I abandon my Pete’s post and begin to walk home. As I pass by the preschool, a blonde woman in her early thirties is struggling to open the door to the preschool, as one of her hands is handling a box of arts and crafts while the other is attempting to handle her energized four-year-old. I stop to help her open the door, and she flashes a brief smile my way, followed with a “Why thank you.”

“No problem,“ I reply. “I’m actually an alumnus here.”

She forces at my remark laugh and begins to march her son through the door two the preschool. Two seconds later she turns around and asks me,

“If you don’t mind me asking, what elementary school did you end up going to?”

When I look back on my 1.5-hour stint in front of Pete’s Coffee, the first question that comes to mind is why are all these people buying coffee, and more specifically, why are all these people buying coffee when it would be faster and cheaper to make it at home? It seems that the majority of Pete’s early morning customers are busy professionals, so why would they waste up to (at times) ten minutes of their morning waiting in line for a relatively overpriced cup of coffee.

It would seem to me that the value of being seen holding a cup of Pete’s coffee must outweigh the marginal benefits of the time and money that would be saved by making one’s coffee at home. In Santa Monica, a morning coffee cup must be just as much an expression of individuality as is a the brand of suit or type of car that one might drive; to clarify, the act of being seen walking around with a cup of Pete’s or Starbucks coffee is intended to make a statement. In his work, Cultural Studies, Chris Baker would disagree, paraphrasing the arguments of Adorno and Horkheimer to say that these morning cups of coffee “while purporting to be democratic, individualistic, and diversified are in actuality authoritarian, conformist and highly standardized (Baker, 49-51). Little do these Santa Monicans realize that they are being manipulated by a “commodity based culture,” whose “primary purpose is to be purchased” (49), when they think they are just getting a cup of joe.

The second notable observation appeared to be the disparate gender roles that became apparent as the morning went on. It appeared as though the majority of men on Montana avenue were picking up there coffee before heading to work, whereas women tended to either be heading to exercise class or dropping off their young children at preschool. So why is it that the majority of Santa Monica women choose to either exercise or attend to the children rather than attempt pursue a career in the working world?

Simone de Beauvoir would claim that these women never even stop to think about the possibility that they could be their family’s sole breadwinner, as western society has historically established the precedent of male as the primary sex and woman as secondary. In The Second Sex, de Beauvoir claims “Woman has ovaries, a uterus: these peculiarities imprison her in her subjectivity, circumscribe her within her own nature” (de Beauvoir, 2). Based only on the fact a woman physically has the organs to bear children, society has assigned her (arbitrarily, de Beauvoir asserts) the role of caretaker, as well as any and all things society deems to be ‘female.’ Whether it be by staying at home to attend to the children, or through donning black leggings whenever she may head to spin class, the female sex has unquestionably ascribed to its role as the other sex, and all the societal mores that come attached to it.

Furthermore, in Santa Monica, the nuclear family is king. If Montana Avenue were to be Fox TV’s next reality show, the views of Cantor with regard to American television (1991) would echo eerily true – a snapshot of Montana Avenue on a weekday morning would “demonize the majority of us who do not live in nuclear families,” and it would “support the main institution of the patriarchal oppression of women” (48). It appears that the successful Santa Monica man leaves his home early to head to work, while his successful partner heads either to exercise class or to take the children to school (perhaps she may head to work later). It seems that women are relegated to the domestic sphere and responsibilities, where they either tend to the family’s children or their own personal image, as the men head out to the professional world.

Works Cited:

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2008. Print.

de Beauvoir, Simone. "The Second Sex: Woman as Other (1949)." Marxists Internet Archive. Web. 02 Aug. 2011. .

Popular Culture - an Introduction

 "What exactly is 'Popular Culture?'" you might ask if you were to fall upon my humble blog and perchance glance across the title of its first entry. Hungry for a definition, mildly interested, or perhaps just searching for a way to pass the time while Modern Family takes a commercial break, your eyes might skim down the page trying to find a clarification or two. Well, if this were the case, you would be a bit out of luck –for now, that is. Popular Culture is a bit tricky; In fact, in the past few days I haven’t been able to wrap my mind around an all-encompassing definition that does justice to something so amorphous yet pervasive as Popular Culture. But, as the next few weeks go by (and as this blog gets more awesome looking), I do hope to hope to sharpen my understanding of Popular Culture. If things go really well, maybe Wikipedia will be boasting a new author on its Popular Culture page.

So, where to begin? In its broadest sense, Popular Culture is concerned with what society consumes on a day-to-day basis: things that we like to watch on TV and in the movies, what we like to listen to and what we eat, the brands we choose to wear and the cars we choose to ride in. Additionally, the study popular culture attempts to take those choices glean our values and preferences as a society from them. But this too is a large number of things to tackle in with one definition, and because of this, certain scholars have taken a shot at defining popular culture further by attempting to dissect it into two branches: High Culture and Low Culture. 

Culture from above, or high context culture, can be viewed as that which is deemed to be 'art' by those in the dominant economic classes, whereas low context culture is the lifeblood of the lower and working classes. To put it in a modern perspective, knowing that non-blended Chilean Sauvignon Blancs are much less acidic than their New Zealand counterparts, or having an appreciation for both Vivaldi and Stan Getz, or perhaps just being able to definitively know that Paul Cézanne was really the best artist of the 1800s (definitely not Monet... ew), could all be tidbits of knowledge taken from a high context culture. In contrast, things such as an ice cold Bud Light™, the latest Blink-182 album, or Justin Bieber's latest hoodie-and-jeans combination would all be darlings culture from below.

Culture from Above:

Culture from Below:

So, it would appear that high context culture decides upon its darlings after years of deliberation and careful thought and critique (maybe there is even a secret rubric involved), while in contrast the lower context cultural objects seem to be organically created and then embraced by the masses. Some authors go as far as to say that those in power play a hand in creating objects of low context culture as a means of keeping the lower classes content and subjugated: “mass culture […] is a tool of domination, a way for capitalism to offer ephemeral gratification to people condemned to lives of work” (Rivkin and Ryan, 1026).If this interests you, check our "The Politics of Culture" by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan.

I find that last part a bit extreme, but nonetheless it is pretty interesting to think about. All this is a lot to swallow for a first bite out of popular culture. But all-in-all, popular culture doesn't taste half bad- especially if it's chilled Chilean Sauvignon Blanc.

Rivkin, Julie, and Machael Ryan, eds. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.