“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment