The Problem with Race as a Category

In discussing the topic of race and racism, Storey brings up the idea of whiteness. It is considered to be the norm, despite white people not necessarily making up a majority of the world population. He explains that white exists outside of the idea of race and that only non-white people are considered to have a race, which is politically, not biologically determined. To further explain this idea, Storey suggests that if a white author writes a book, he/she will be described as an author; however, if a black author writes a book, he/she will be described as a black author, not just an author. When speaking, people of various races are thought to be speaking on behalf of their race, not just themselves as a white person would. 

For the most part, I can agree with Storey’s viewpoint; however, it is clear that he is coming from a western background. In the west, we do tend to consider race in the way he describes, but this is not necessarily the case if we travel to the west. His idea that a person of an outside race tends to be considered speaking on behalf of that entire race is quite true. Where he is wrong, is that the eastern hemisphere does not necessarily consider white to be the norm as he suggests is a global phenomenon. 

Traveling to Japan, I became very aware of this. As one of two Americans at my university, when asked a question about my opinion, I was considered to be speaking on behalf of all Americans. This became quite troubling because there were many times I knew that my opinion might not have been in the majority back at home. Just as we may often ask others what they think, I was asked what Americans think on various topics.

Not to downplay the issue of race, I think we do need to reconsider the idea that white people are without race or that his issues with the western world are not applied differently in other parts. I would say that it depends upon the country in which you are in. Certainly in the melting pot of America, we create a norm of something that should not be. However, that same norm cannot be applied to Japan, where the norm (and majority) is certainly those of the Japanese decent. 

Going back to the issue that one person is speaking on behalf of their race, this creates a problem, which I believe is also what Storey is suggesting. Just because all people classified into the same race, does not mean they are likely to share the same opinion. Just as all females or democrats or teenagers may not agree on the same issues. We cannot consider one person’s view to speak for the whole. This is one of the greatest problems with classification, which was also brought up as a part of feminism and queer theory and applies to any time in which we try to broadly describe a group. 

In-Game Avatar vs. Out-of-Game Self

In “Videogames, Avatars and Identity,” Zach Waggoner attempts to tackle some rather difficult questions, that I think all gamers regularly consider. He wants to know why we play video games and if they affect the development of our real-world identity. He admits the latter question  may be quite difficult, but questions many gamers, particularly those who play RPGs and finds out that while most people separate the concept of both their in-game and out-of-game identities, they are somewhat related. 

Waggoner’s question, “can video game play impact identity formation?” can be given a simple yes, but we should ask to what extent it is true. This question comes up in the news quite often when we see school shootings. Reporters are quick to ask whether the gunman had a history of playing violent video games. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But does this affect their real-world identity or does their real-world identity affect their avatar? Waggoner gives examples of several gamers who are unable to play as an evil character. Even thought it is a video game, they still feel guilty. So, if people still react this way, how much of an effect could it really have on your reality? 

Personally, I can play a good character or an evil character. In Fable III, I murdered guards and ran from the law. Would I do this in real life? Not a chance. I’m one of the least violent people you will meet, but it sure was fun to pretend to have a different identity in game. What I mean to show with these examples is that while Waggoner’s respondents admit to sharing traits with their avatars, the question is, and probably always will, remain unanswered. We each play games differently and they affect us in contrasting ways. 

The Dangers of Labels

Butler begins her essay by admitting that she does not advocate for theories centralized around lesbians or gays. This is because she believes the act of theories puts a box on the concept of lesbian or gay, which can go against its purpose and become oppressing. She continues this skepticism with the labels 'lesbian' or 'gay,' because the labels set up expectations and limits on what the person can be. This is further complicated when those labels create a negative stereotype or the idea that a gay person is a lesser imitation version of a heterosexual person. The concepts surrounding these terms set up limiting expectations.

Butler's ideas of discourse regarding queer theory is very similar to those of Wallace and Alexander who also think the way we talk about the subject needs to be greatly reworked. Our current discourse sets up too many expectations. However, I think she differs from them and would like to lessen the use of the terms in general. That said, they all seem to have the same end goal in abolishing the current negative stereotypes. Butler certainly does not fit well with any of the structuralist theorists, as they consider putting a word in definite terms quite important, while she believes the opposite is true. Thus, she draws inspiration from post-structuralists. She mentions Foucault in suggesting that claiming the term 'homosexuality' as a means of discourse can be both limiting and empowering.

While I am straight and haven't had the struggle of Butler's in being put into a box and misunderstood because of one of her, presumably many, descriptors, I can try to relate. By using a loaded term such as lesbian to describe an individual, we negate all of their other attributes. This happens in another part of our culture that I do identify with. I am happy to classify myself as a gamer. So, I tell others that I am a gamer, yet when this information is relayed, I am called a 'gamer-girl.' It is not enough for me to exist with the rest of gamers, as a girl we must have our category because we are such a rare breed (as others may say). However, the term gamer-girl comes with certain negative stereotypes. I am assumed to be less knowledgable and not as skilled as someone who is just a gamer. Both of these examples show the danger of labels. It's natural for us to use them, but we need to consider the point at which they are oppressing instead of informing.

Romance Novels: Feminist or Patriarchal?

According to Radway, this is not a question we can yet answer. She explains that there are many types of romance novels within the genre and they all have different types of readers. Important to consider is that the readers of these novels do so with different purposes. Some read them to observe the contradictions between the novels and feminism while others read them because of "pressures exerted by developments in the larger culture." What these have in common, is that all of the readers are participating in a female community within our culture. However, because that may be where the similarities end, Radway tells us that what needs to be considered are the effects of reading romance, but this has proven difficult to track. In order to succeed, she suggests we need to create a new discourse fitting for the subject. 

Radway's discussions of the women taking part in culture and romance novels' affects, or lack of affect, on readers can be traced to Bazerman and Williams. Bazerman suggets that texts influence behavior. Whether these novels encourage readers to take action or not, shows that their reading of the texts has some effect. Williams suggests that we do not merely consume culture as Marxism seems to suggest, but that we partake in culture. Precisely what Radway describes. She also discusses the idea of using text to reconstruct culture, another idea Williams discussed. Finally, Radway's final paragraph, a call to action to create a way to talk about this subject, suggest a post-structuralist idea of giving new meanings when necessary, which comes from Derrida and Foucalt. 

I appreciate Radway's consideration that reading romance novels can be in alignment with feminist beliefs. Despite its cause of inclusion, feminism often excludes many people for their actions or enjoyment in certain activities or consumption of pieces of culture. A similar example to romance novels is the current debate over whether a person can be a feminist, or even just considered an independent woman, while at the same time enjoying Disney movies. Like the romance novels described in Reading the Romance, Disney princess are portayed as helpless and need saving. However, our involvement in this piece of culture does not mean we are helpless. It means we either enjoy and/or wish to critique this act of culture. As Radway explains, we can partake in this with a lens of recognition regarding the stereotypes being portrayed, despite the feminist stereotype that women should not enjoy these things. Our enjoyment does not mean we will act like the heroines or princesses in the texts. 

Queer Discourse

Alexander and Wallace discuss the needed changes regarding LGBT discourse. They explain that while it is a start to address the negative factors, such as homophobia, this does not undermine our heterosexual society. The suggestions they offer are to challenge heteronormative privilege, consider how we are participants in dominative heteronormative discourse, and to avoid merely limited inclusion in discourse.

The ideas of Alexander and Wallace are not unlike those of the feminist theorists, Weedon and Ang who suggest changing the discourse to fit the topic. Like Weedon who stemmed from Foucalt and other poststructuralists, Alexander and White suggest a way of looking at discourse that emphasizes its ability to change, unlike the fixed definitions of structuralists Barthes, Levi-Strauss and Saussure.

Alexander and Wallace present a few questions at the end of their essay. They suggest we should ask why we divide ourselves into "gay and straight," "male and female," etc. While not an inherently bad question to ask, I got the idea that they found something wrong with this division that was hard for me to agree with. Certainly dividing into groups and thinking less of the "other" is immoral. However, it is natural to classify people into groups, to create categorical descriptions. It allows us to create discourse surrounding the subject and shows that we are not all the same. It would be unreasonable not to classify people. That said, I agree that the idea that one of the groups in each pair shouldn't become the dominant one and that we should be able to speak in an inclusive way as Alexander and Wallace suggest.

Poststructuralism's Influence on Feminism

Weedon discusses the influences of poststructuralism on the way we talk about feminism. She elaborates on the importance of language, subjectivity and discourse within the context of feminism. She explains that not all poststructuralist lens are appropriate for feminism, Foucalt's works especially well due to its addressing of history, gender, class and race. She explains that the language used provides a social organization for feminism. This allows us to see that the term gender is "socially produced." This is important to see, because Saussure's theory did not allow for multiple meanings of gender, despite it's necessity. By showing the evolution of structuralism, to post-structuralism, she explains that the word 'woman' is able to contain several meanings. The subjectivity Weedon explains, refers to "conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual… and her ways of understanding her relation to the world." This subjectivity provides room for discourse and allows the way we talk about feminism to change and create new meanings.

Weedon's theories can certainly be seen to spawn from Foucault, as she explicitly states; however we can also see that she takes ideas from Bazerman. This is very important for Weedon's ideas of discourse and her discussion of language's effect on social organization. In discussing subjectivity, it is not hard to relate Zizek and Freud. They continually discuss the way we must repress our desires and Weedon's discussion of the conscious and unconscious thoughts.

Comparing Weedon to previous theorists, her ideas are certainly more relatable. She explains the relevance in a way not always present with the others. I was particularly intrigued about her discussion of gender. Despite being open-minded and accepting, I have a hard time actually understanding the way gender is presented in our society today. Coming from a background of science and logic, it is natural for me to think of the biological definition of gender we have always been taught. However, Weedon discusses this in a way I had not previously heard. In contrast to my typical thoughts black and white, Weedon explains that it can have multiple meanings and has changed over time. Her explanation is important because, sometimes, we are used to seeing a definition we feel comfortable with and don't realize others even exist. Not just regarding gender, this can be true for many of words we come across, which, I think, becomes her point for language as discourse regarding feminism.

Hollywood and High School Horrors

The Movie Blog reviews a movie called The Conjuring. In doing so, it comments on our expectations of horror movies and that this is movie would have been good, had it not relied on horror conventions halfway through.

The second article, which was from Bitch Magazine, discusses the changes that have occurred in the way sex education is presented to teenagers. They also point at that this has impacted the number of teen pregnancies, which is now lower due to the changes in sex ed. The new way of presenting it is less based around abstinence only and, instead, seeks to give factual information that does not shame students and does make them feel empowered to make their own choices and it lets their opinions be heard. These changes reflect the need in our society for teenagers to be able to feel responsible and respected. They do not want to be told not to do something because it is wrong, they want to be told why it is wrong so they can choose whether or not to do it.

Considering the sex ed article, I think Arnold would be in support of these ideas. This is a way to educate the population, but instead of revolting, it is preventing unplanned pregnancies. They are two different concepts, but the ideas can be seen as parallels. I also think Bazerman and Greene can relate well to this. Greene thinks new information should be entered into the conversation, while Bazerman would see the new form of education as a way to influence other aspects which is the goal of this education. The movie review reflects the ideas reflected in Levisism; culture is being commercialized and the quality is reduced. As The Movie Blog explains, The Conjuring started off as unique and thoughtful but begin to dissipate in quality as it resorted to typical Hollywood techniques. This is reflective of the way the movie industry would prefer to use a formula rather than be creative.

I found the article about sex ed very informative. I had not heard of any of these changes taking place. I did become concerned at the part where it says not to suggest teen pregnancy is bad thing and that if a teen wants to become pregnant, that they should feel supported. This is quite radical thinking that is very difficult to agree with. In these classes, are they taught how to support a child if they choose to have one? Are they sure their boyfriend will be supportive? I just find it hard to believe that a teenager would ever be ready to choose to become pregnant and I don't think this should be taught. However, the rest of the ideas were grounded in a good logic and I do support better education.