         |
|
||||
| Writings: Essays | |||||
| Your living-room is the factory. The product being manufactured is...you According to postmodern theories people are much like pieces of clay. We mould ourselves, and are moulded by others, in response to popular and accepted ideologies and beliefs of the day. Current social communication processes, particularly mainstream media, advertising, television and film, only seem to strengthen this concept bombarding society with messages about what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour. If these postmodern theories are accurate, and if we are to look at the current state of western society they do seem to be, who then is the driving force behind this ‘identity-creation’ agenda, and why has society so willingly taken it on? The media is often blamed as the major factor influencing the identity of people and whilst there is truth in this it is probably more accurate to say the media is predominantly a tool - and it must be said a willing tool. The major collaborating forces in this identity-creation game are also commercial corporations and governments, with the media being used to play the role of messenger. Rare forms of media like Michael Moore’s film ‘Farenheit 911’ and independent internet publications encourage people to delve deeper into the truth, however for the most part the mainstream media tell you whatever fiction they want you to hear. As a result of the rise of “mass broadcasting” we have become “a society conditioned to mass production and mass politician decision making.” (www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ Postmodernism, para 7) On a political level we have been conditioned to believe that something is either acceptable or non-acceptable. Somehow governing has extended to “the government of souls and lives” (Foucault 1991, p87). It is an “exercise of power” (Foucault 1991, p87) and arguably is connected to hidden agendas not known to the average person. With regards to sexuality and relationship, issues that are complex and incredibly unique to each individual, the government has played a major role in creating our identities. Not only have they laid out definitions of what is acceptable but they have created laws to ensure that any behaviour outside of these boundaries is illegal, and thus turning individuals, those who attempt to escape the identity-creation trap, into outcasts of society. On Friday 13 August 2004 the Bill amending the Marriage Act was passed in the Australian Federal Government. The amendment has inserted the following words into the Marriage Act: “Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” (Drew 2004, para 3). Essentially this has major ramifications on how society views and treats individuals who do not fall into this category. It excludes those members in society who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or who prefer an open or polygamous marriage, the latter already being illegal. This Bill also “stopped Australia from having to recognise same sex marriages legally officated overseas.” (Drew 2004, para 1), and attempts are being made to ban same-sex couples from adopting children or having access to IVF programs. These discrimanatory laws and political stands serve to increase an already divided society and “sends a very bad signal to the community that same sex relationships are not real relationships.” (Drew 2004, final para home page). One outlet for the media’s role is through mainstream magazines where for the most part “a sexuality is constructed for the reader that is ‘normal’ and ‘natural’. (Saywell & Pittam 1996, p49). “Deviant” groups of society have included “gay men, prostitutes and promiscuous women” (Saywell & Pittam 1996, p49). They are defined by “their multiplicitous transgressions, and are constructed as threatening to the ‘general public’.” (Saywell & Pittam 1996, p48). When discussing issues like HIV and AIDS there is an underlying message that “sexually-transmitted disease is ‘other’ to the practices of a general population” (Saywell & Pittam 1996, p48). In magazines like Cleo and Cosmopolitan “serial monogamy is the preferred model (of relationship) - the smaller the series the better - and marriage is the ultimate and eventual goal.” (Saywell & Pittam 1996, p49). Society’s treatment of individuals who step outside the bounds of ‘normal’ were explored in an analysis undertaken by French Postmodern Philosopher Michel Foucault. In his book ‘Madness and Civilisation’ Foucault looks at the way in which “the idea of madness has developed through history.” (www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ Michel-Foucaultnationmaster.com, Madness and Civilization para 1). Foucault looked at “the ways in which people tried to treat the insane” (www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ Michel-Foucaultnationmaster.com, Madness and Civilization para 3). One case involved a Samuel Tuke whose “country retreat for the mad consisted of punishing the madmen until they learned to act normally, effectively intimidating them into behaving like well-adjusted people.” (www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ Michel-Foucault, Madness and Civilization para 3). Is this what the government is trying to do with their sexuality and relationship laws? These laws are extensions of family ‘norms’ and gender roles that have been passed down to us politically, commercially and through the media. The dominant image of a happy family that we are shown in “adverts, magazines, the cinema, television and family portraits, from the royals to our own photo albums” (Weedon 1997, p14) is one where there are “fathers, mothers and children from one or more generations, smiling happily at the camera.” (Weedon 1997, p14). After receiving repeated messages throughout ones lifetime, a person ingests the idea that this is what is ‘normal’, and anything outside of this is thus ‘not normal’ and thus ‘wrong’. This not only affects same-sex partners, but also those who are not in partnership. Single people in western society are often made to feel as if they have failed in this pursuit of gaining an accepted identity, singleness being somehow the sub-standard alternative to coupleness. This ‘you are less worthy because you are single’ mentality also seems to apply more to women than to men. In articles about singer Kylie Minogue you can usually find questions like “Why can’t Kylie keep a man?” yet articles about long-term bachelor actor George Clooney ask “Why can’t women hold on to George?” We receive constant messages that infer to be a single woman means that something must be wrong with you. Conversely, single men are allowed to explore their freedom and to wait until the right woman comes along before committing. This gender-biased belief has sparked a movement “the quirkyalones”, inspired by the book “Quirkyalone: A Manifesto For Uncompromising Romantics” by Sasha Cogen. Cogen has set out to dispel some myths . In the article “Single Power” Wood writes: “Many will be glad, in the face of yet another wedding invitation, that they are no longer defined as the social leper. 'I think the era of the pitied single is out,' Cogen says.” (Wood 2004). Ironically as much as we are fed messages that marriage is the ultimate goal in relationship life, shows like “Everybody loves Raymond” imply marriage is much like prison, and something to escape as often as possible. What kind of an influence do these two contradictory messages have on our high divorce and infidelity rates? Are people getting married to the wrong people just to claim the accepted ‘I am married” external identity, only to find it doesn’t fulfill them internally? Society’s expectations of being a mother is also a construct that is hard to change, and a shock to the system to modern women as Naomi Wolf discusses in her book “Misconceptions: Truth, Lies and the Unexpected on the Journey to Motherhood”. Wolf writes: “We were all strong, progressive women. Yet this conversation about whose career would ‘take the hit’...was happening all around us, and always with the same outcome.” (Wolf 2002, p221). Wolf says that in the search for balance post having children “balance is usually structured around a bottom line that the woman’s life is the source of flexibility, and the man’s job cannot be touched.” (Wolf 2002, p223). This is less of an issue in countries like the United Kingdom “with the existence of paternity leave” (Wolf 2002, p223), which only serves to highlight the influence antiquated legal and political systems have on women, relationships and family where paternity leave does not exist. This lack of balance and fairness has multiple affects on a woman’s sense of identity including her ability to be financially independent, and her sense of self as someone who suddenly finds herself without her usual outlets of intellectual and social stimulation. Liberal feminists argue that “domestic labour and childcare offer little scope for self-development and self-realization.” (Weedon 1997, p16). Social feminism “has attempted to extend to women the Marxist assumption that human nature is not essential, but socially produced and changeable.” (Weedon 1997, p17). Social feminists “do not see women as primarily either sexual or procreative beings - these are only two aspects among many which constitute women.” (Weedon 1997, p17). The political construction of ethnic and national identities is yet another personal and individual issue that is being increasingly defined by governments, particularly those of the United States and Australia. Since September 11 2002 we have received repeated messages that have served to inspire a fear of anyone who follows Islam or is of Muslim or Middle Eastern descent. We have been brainwashed to fear an entire nation, resulting in the needless deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. (www.iraqbodycount.net/database) Ordinary people have had an unwanted identity thrown upon them associating them with terrorists and terrorist activity, and are finding themselves living their lives in defence mode. Asama Khan is an American Muslim who keenly feels the influence September 11 has had on her identity. In an article published in the New York Times she agrees with a quote made by fellow American Muslim Hamza Yusuf: "It's like our religion was hijacked." (Finn 2001). The attack has “transformed her from a citified, New Age Muslim who shopped at Ikea, skated in Central Park and made profitable use of her law degree as a project-finance associate at Chadbourne & Park, to an angrily articulate advocate intent on disproving any link between Islam and the fugitive who dominates her nightmares, Osama bin Laden.” (Finn 2001) Images on television have influenced the way we perceive the war in Iraq, and have had a strong impact on support for the war and the type of identity we bestow on both U.S military and Iraqi freedom-fighters or the terrorists. The media controls who to portray as the bad guys doing all the killing. They control who we see being killed, and how many are being killed. This gives us an inaccurate and warped version of reality. Instead a mock reality is being constructed for us, one which serves the greater purpose of the reality-constructers - in this case the U.S government with the aid of the media. Postmodern philosopher Jean Baudrillard noted this phenomenon in connection with the Gulf War. Baudrillard is known for “his investigations into hyperreality” (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ Jean-Baudrillard, para 2) particularly in America. “According to Baudrillard, America has constructed itself a world that is more "real" than Real, and where those inhabiting it are obsessed with timelessness, perfection, and objectification of the self. Furthermore, authenticity has been replaced by copy (thus reality is replaced by a substitute), and nothing is "real," though those engaged in the illusion are incapable of seeing it.” Through the lifelike lens of television and film “Instead of having experiences, people observe spectacles, via real or metaphorical control screens. Instead of the real, we have simulation and simulacra.” (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ Jean-Baudrillard, para 2) With regards to the Gulf war, Baudrillard claims that it never even took place. (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ Jean-Baudrillard, para 3). Rather “The reality of the war, where people fight for a cause and are killed, had been replaced by a 'copy' war that is delivered to televisions across the world where no fighting is taking place. America was engaged in an illusion that it was fighting...The 'war' that was broadcast on television, and therefore the war as it is understood by the majority of people, was not actually real.” ((http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ Jean-Baudrillard, para 3). Author, Journalist and Film-maker William Thomas has a similar theory connected to the outcome of George W Bush’s election win: “"It's the ultimate triumph of extremely sophisticated, media-complicit propaganda...Only in America has a virtual reality manufactured by the same corporations profiting from the wars they sell completely displaced the reality shared by the remaining 96% of the planet...You had to hand it to Karl Rove for taking Hitler's most manipulative insight to the ultimate level of hypnotically televised mass mesmerization. Keep repeating the same lie over and over again, Rove kept telling GW, and even in the face of relentless reality - even if you persist in doing the exact opposite of what you say you are doing - the most outrageous fabrications will eventually become facts’ swallowed by nearly every rube." (Thomas 2004) This consumer consumption of spoon-fed reality is one that activist ‘culture jamming’ groups like Adbusters are working hard to shift. Adbuster’s founder Kalle Lasn says that the primary job of the cultural jamming movement is “to nip away at consumer culture and try to bring people out of their trances and engage in activism of all kinds.” (Smith 2002). He believes that “we have lost our independence...we have become a nation of consumer drones and our democracies aren’t working anymore.” (Smith 2002). As well as having a physical impact on our planet and ability to sustain this style of living Lasn is concerned about the mental impact consumerism is having on our sense of self. “It has been scientifically calculated that there is an average of three thousand marketing messages a day seeping into the average North American brain.” (Smith 2002). These messages tell you everything from how to think about the big issues like global warming to what you have to wear to be cool, essentially turning us into mind-numbed dumbed-down robots. “Postmodernism...has an obvious distrust toward claims about truth, ethics, or beauty being rooted in anything other than individual perception and group construction.” (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ Postmodernism, para 6) It raises the question is it easier to be given an identity than to find and assert your own, or do we have no control over this identity manipulation? It is possible that “having grown up within a particular system of meanings and values, which may well be contradictory, we may find ourselves resisting alternatives.” (Weedon 1997, p32) Postmodernism can be seen as “a development of aspects of modernism while rejecting others, in particular the emphasis on authenticity...Postmodernism attacks the notions of monolithic universals and encourages fractured, fluid and multiple perspectives.” (www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ Postmodernism, para 1). So, according to postmodern theory identity has become not an authentic energy that comes from within, but a mask or cloak that has been put over us. This mask or cloak has been created from the fragments of external influence that are thrust upon us each day; advertising, television, film, political agendas, society’s rules, our own and other people’s perceptions of what is right and wrong, what is normal and accepted, what is perverse and ‘other’. Scared to be an outcast and shunned by society as some black sheep who didn’t follow the herd according to postmodern theory we all wear these masks and cloaks so that we fit in, so that we are accepted. According to postmodern theory we seek and create our identity through these external influences. So what of our authentic self? Do we not have one? Without external influences would we be an empty vacuous shell? If we have indeed become people “addicted to the consumption of a hyper-modern non-real reality” (Frost 2004) we need to ask ourselves why this is. At the root of all addictions is an inner emptiness, a hole that seeks filling. When we look to the external to fill this hole we are temporarily satiated, but ultimately the empty feeling comes back and we are left with the hole sensation once again. Is this why we so willingly take on identities that are forced or manipulated onto us? Do we as a culture have a fear of looking within to find and uncover our own identities, beliefs and truth? Whether our ultimate salvation lies in developing a strong enough sense of self that we can say no to the identities and realities being constructed on our behalf, or saying no to the constructions in order to be able to develop a strong sense of self, this is one journey that seems inevitable if we are to take back control over our identities and true expression of them. Bibliography
|
|||||
 |
|||||
| © Copyright 2006 Dana. Site Development + Design: Lelfly | |||||
