This is where pro-illegal immigration activists fail to understand legal equality.
I show ID when:
1. Pulled over by the police,
2. Making purchases with a department store card,
3. Showing up for a doctor's appointment,
4. Applying for a credit card or loan,
5. Applying for or renewing a driver's license or passport,
6. Applying for any kind of insurance,
7. Registering at a college or public school,
8. Donating blood,
9. Obtaining prescription drugs,
10. Voting,
11. Making some debit card purchases, especially if out of state,
12. Collecting a boarding pass to travel by plane or train,
13. Checking into a hotel,
14. Checking a book out of the library,
15. Going clubbing, buying any drink, cigarette, dry ice, lighters and more,
16. Attending most Phillips Academy and campus events.
All citizens are legally required to carry identification for the event of being stopped, and all visitors or residents are mandated by the feds to carry a passport with a visa or other documents if in the United States - this is just what Washington says [8 US Code Section 1304(e) and 1306(a)].
We who live in America are required to prove who we are nearly every day; why should certain people in this country not do so, and remain invisible to the law? Why do some legally privileged people expect America to exempt them from basic border security practiced by every other country?
You can rant about the details and nuances of legislation and policy, but at the end of the day, one reasonable goal needs to be achieved: equality under the law.
The politicians and activists that perpetuate a narrative of "victimization" and "injustice" stall legal equality for the rest of Americans - and always for political favors in elections and donations by powerful groups.
Do not defend the status-quo injustice against law abiding citizens - find a reasonable way to end it.
The idea of endless untapped bounty, abundance, wealth is undoubtedly a great American idea. This idea parallels the great American ideas of freedom and natural rights, initiative, autonomy, restricted government, independence and self-reliance.
These aforementioned “American” ideas are often equated with the historical and social context of the American people. Geographers, historians and sociologists agree that the geography of the New World’s great continent proved central in the formation of these American notions of liberty, independence, and limited government: the great oceans that distanced America from the armies of Europe brought economic and political independence; the broad lands that reduced the effectiveness of governance, promoted freedom; the lack of population and competing interests resulting from resource competition proved intensive governance ineffective; the great lands and expanse of uninhabited lands resulted in the freedom to be left alone, act as one felt, and access resources to generate wealth.
The abundance of America started with its very discovery by Europeans, overcrowded on a continent, desperate for resources and land. Explorers wrote of its magnificent forests, and “uninhabited” coastlines for the taking. Explorers landed on the Americas, claiming the continent and all on it, as theirs. The race for this abundance began.
This idea, from its very beginning, played out initially to be a myth – pilgrims arriving in the United States starved, ran out of gunpowder, could not grow crops, and did not find iron ore for tools. However, this idea and its more modern variation (discussed later) was most fundamental in America's attraction of immigrants from all over the world.
The abundance of America continued to set this land apart from others’. In the American War of Independence, the abundance of America became tied to the very strength of America and Americans – almost a form of patriotism. Thomas Paine, an America Revolutionary Thinker said in Common Sense: “ Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing. More land there is yet unoccupied, which…may be hereafter applied, not only to the discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage as this…The infant state of the Colonies…is an argument in favor of independence. We are sufficiently numerous…” Paine even goes so far as to say that America’s natural plenty grants it the right to be independent, and is a testament to the strength of America.
The expansion of the United States beyond the confines of New England forests and Virginian hills meant unlimited resources for human inhabitation. The Ohio Territories, with its natural forests and waterways, provided the first taste of natural wealth for Americans. America immediately more than doubled in size with the Louisiana Purchase, opening up vast prairies with Bison and lush Louisiana wetlands. The Oregon Territories and Mexican Cession opened up Americans to more mineral wealth and land before Americans even settled the plains. John Wayne summarized the current mentality of Americans best when he said: “I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves”. Aside from the politics, the underlying assumptions had not changed: that “this great country” had “new land” enough for “great numbers of people”.
Many of the initial descriptions of the frontier, with its resources were imaginary: fictitious depictions made by those on the eastern seaboard. One 19th century American drawing depicted the West as nude women tending an endless garden – both metaphors for endless resource utilization. One 19th century Illinois newspaper editor said this about the west: “Shall this garden of beauty lie dormant in its wild and useless luxuriance? Not only for our own use, but for the use of man.”
The California Gold Rush prompted the first great migration to the West, preceded only by the Westward migration of a band of Latter-Day Saints escaping religious persecution. Notions of gold in the East created a great stir, prompted by exaggerations of Western mineral wealth. [example] The new available land, combined with the Homestead Act, allowed every American to access vast amounts of land. In the Land Run of 1889, fifty thousand people rushed from the borders of Oklahoma to claim their 160 acres of the vast Unassigned Lands; like a marathon, men and women charged onto these “free lands” upon the blow of the Army’s whistle . Popular campaigns had been launched to open these lands. Within several hours of the opening, Oklahoma City and Guiterm had been established, organized, settled with ten thousand residents. At the closing of the frontier, Celebrity Historian Frederick J. Turner held in this ”frontier thesis” that the American character arrived from the abundance of free land, water, and forest; the settling of free land produced the very American traits of self-reliance, individualism, inventiveness, restless energy, mobility, materialism, and optimism.
Turner was concerned that the closing of the frontier would mean the end of this American idea. Isaiah Bowman wrote in Foreign Affairs:
“The pioneer is no longer a man armed with only a rifle and an axe…in a clearing in the forest. He is not only equipped in a totally different manner, sometimes even with modern machinery, but his incentives are no longer the same…it is a question whether the pioneer spirit as manifest in the west-ward spread of settlers in the united States still exists or weather it has passed out.”
While the west-ward spread may have ended, pioneer-spirit in the modern day, produced by the narrative of a great, untapped American abundance, has not. The 1970s energy crisis revived the idea of great American abundance in the public sphere.
Ronald Reagan ran in the 1980 election promising to further utilize America’s abundant potential in energy resources. In one portion of his nomination acceptance speech, Reagan said: “It is impossible to capture in words the splendor of this vast continent…America must get to work producing more energy. Large amounts of oil and natural gas lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched…the economic prosperity of our people is a fundamental part of our environment.”
Noted Geographer XX once said ““No other area of the earth’s crust of similar size will ever match of exceed in quantity and variety the vast mineral wealth of the United States. Our people have had the skills necessary to utilize this rich endowment in building the industrial might of America. The United States is the world’s leading producer and consumer of minerals.” However, since the closing of the frontier, the population of our lands, and the consumption of our resources, this noble American idea may no longer be valid. The Geographer continued: “The heavy drain on our resources in the past is beginning to show up in declining or state production rates…We are a have-not nation in many essential commodities…The impact of depletion is showing up in the United States in no uncertain terms.”
The dawning reality of dwindling reserves and idea of American abundance was tossed around in the American public during the 2008 election year. The blunt, bumper-sticker catchphrase “Drill Baby, Drill” became a talking point of the most prominent conservative politicians. Its popularity among traditionalist-conservatives led to a Reaganesque revival of the need to put the idea of untapped bounty to work – to utilize America’s “vast” resources. This message resonated so deeply in Americans that offshore oil exploration was soon authorized in A.N.W.R. and the southern Atlantic Seaboard.
As America, and the West especially, base less of their wealth and production on raw materials, the idea of natural material abundance may have morphed into material consumer abundance, and the idea of plentiful economic wealth and opportunity.
Michelle Obama, at a rally for the President of the United States, used an allegory of a pie to present an alternative to this idea. She lectured to the crowd: “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so someone else can have more.”
Glenn Beck, the foremost conservative TV talk show host, repeated this very fundamental, individualist frontier idea of abundance: “Success and money -- it's not finite. This is America…You've got to look at money and success as the ocean…Let's stop thinking about pieces of pie…this is America. We're a freaking bakery. Bake more. Make as many pies as you want.”
The United States Chamber of Commerce launched this advertisement campaign in its attempt to appeal to this fundamental American idea for legitimacy.
A two minute commercial depicting the following shots was also aired.
“Unravel three hundred million individual economies”
Notice the frequent scenes of American entrepreneurs, embodying the pioneer spirit through their work and accomplishment, standing before the abundance of their produce and material inputs. While the advertisement promotes the idea of ‘dreaming big’, it does so by appealing to the material and opportunistic abundance harnessed by the American entrepreneurial pioneer. In many ways, these two American figures, the pioneer and entrepreneur, are connected in their quest to tap the plentiful, great, vast America.
Desperate Housewives is obviously of a different caliber than Mad Men: the former being more like a comic soap-opera, the latter being a cable drama. However, narratives about gender and family roles form the foundation of both of these shows. While both shows provide a satire of the gender stereotypes of the era, the more comic nature of Desperate Housewives’ drama means that it often provides satire through the breakdown of these gender roles in the situation. The acknowledgment of these stereotypes, and the sometimes contradicting reality, is what we should look at in Episode 15.
Episode 15 peeks into the widest range of gender and family stereotypes relevant to Media Studies in Season Six. I strongly encourage anyone to watch it. The drama in this episode is more independent from other episodes, and understandable by those who don’t follow the show.
The episode is broken down based around Robin’s interaction with each “desperate housewife” in the show.
The single Robin is portrayed as a sexual object from scene one merely because of her beauty.
The first meeting she has with the married couples presents the first stereotype about married male and female roles with regards to their interaction with external women. The men flock to her side to court her, as the wives both resent her and their men’s overwhelming sexual urges. With the scene of the women in the kitchen vilifying the single beautiful woman as a threat to their marriages, the situation could not be more similar to the birthday party in Mad Men.
Interestingly, throughout the entire show, the men and “teenage boys” are not expected to be modest, responsible, and held accountable for their interaction with Robin. In the following scenes, the parents do not hold their teenage boy accountable through punishment for wanting to solicit sex and stare at a woman, but rather acknowledge his inability to control himself with “hormones holding his brain hostage” and breach of morality. She instead confronts Robin about “putting on a show” for the boy, as if she is responsible for the boy’s sexual thoughts.
In that scene, the wife holds a wooden spoon for cooking the whole time, and she keeps the husband’s “immoral” fantasy of pre-marital sex in check. 1950s family sitcoms -- sound familiar?
Lynette and Tom Scavo interact in the living room fulfilling both gender roles: domestic woman with baby folding laundry, working man in office attire on the couch dictating to the woman. The comedy lies in that she rejects that stereotype, but quickly falls back into the female stereotype by being bought off with jewelry, and by offering sex as a gift to the husband. The comedy lies in the fact that the strong-willed Lynette rejects the stereotype. She rejects the idea of the jewelry (a physical manifestation of the husband’s breadwinner-ship and desire to please the wife) much like Betty subtly does to Don Draper’s gift of an elegant watch. This relationship is an example of the gendered social contract of marriage in The Way We Never Were: a wife’s domesticity and sex in exchange for the husband’s security and providing for a lifestyle.
The next comedy again lies in gender roles - the fact that Robin doesn’t know anything about baking and cakes, and that she greatly idolizes those who are more domestic than her. This satire only exists because the stereotype is that women learn how to bake cakes – a symbol for domesticity. The satire continues in "Susan and the stripper" when Susan heats microwaved food for her husband since she is unable to cook. She is unable to cook and soothe her husband - this makes Susan feel awkward since she, within one minute, failed to fulfill two obligations expected by the stereotype of a wife.
The following comedy lies in the inability for the wife to arouse her husband and offer sex, as being able to do so successfully is seen as a given in the traditional role of a wife. The satire also comes from the character of Bree – being an untraditional housewife: the breadwinner, the more responsible, the more mobile one in the marriage.
The story goes on, and these narratives play out on Wisteria Lane. But the narratives that tie the episode together, and to Media Studies, are narratives about the gendered contract of marriage, and gendered distribution of responsibility for work, marriage, and sexual urges.
In nostalgic continuance of winter term, I stumbled upon a Huffington Post commentary The End of Hollywood as We Know It. It argues that "this is not a happy time to be an entertainment industry executive", because technology allows people to defeat advertising, leads to piracy, and perpetuates the idea that content should be free. Googled anyone?
The argument is supported by a hyper-linked news story that was reported by the Post that day: Limewire, the world's largest content-sharing network, was determined by a New York Federal Judge to be held responsible for copyright infringement for not cracking down on Limewire user's sharing of copyrighted content (the downloading of which makes up a bulk of its traffic).
The implications of this ruling are great - social networking and chat such as Google Wave/Chat, Facebook, Windows Live Messenger/Spaces, Yahoo may also face suits by media industries for not cracking down on the sharing of copyrighted songs or photos. Will email also soon become required to include screening for copyrighted content sharing? What does this mean for internet privacy?
Just two weeks ago, in a news story buried pages deep, in a tiny column, on the New York Times, the internet-control power-grab by the FCC was said to have moved forward after it used the tactic of reclassifying the internet broadband as traditional phone networks. This gives it the power to regulate broadband distribution, without congressional approval, despite having been denied that right after a Federal Court of Appeals case, Comcast vs. FCC, in April. Under these guidelines, it does not have the power to regulate content, but it certainly does have the power to regulate content distribution - such as copyrighted material. I'm no legal scholar, but does the FCC have the capacity to take the initiative and become a federal executive-branch internet policeman? It seems so.
What about content? A the Columbia Basin Herald put it "have no fear, for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski...has said that “FCC policies should not include regulating Internet content.” There's nothing more reassuring than when a federal official asks you to rest your trust in federal self-restriction and moderation.
Not to blow the story out of proportion, but the implications of the Limewire-piracy lawsuit and FCC power grab may be signaling a change in how the free media ecosystems interact with our human need for control. Excuse the pun, but is this a change to be hoped for?
These two quotes combined present the essence of heroism: taking upon responsibility for a greater cause. The only variable in this equation is the cause; the extraordinary cause that one seeks has to be respected by a population in order for the defined hero to become their heroic figure.
Because people are social beings and consolidate their emotions and identities through/into a group's, peoples throughout history have collectively taken upon a cause, or idolized a certain cause. The heroes of these peoples are those that have taken upon the responsibility of that cause, for whenever it existed.
There are universal causes heroes fight for: the protection of "innocent life", sacrificing for or defending the "virtuous" or "helpless", pursuit of "justice" for "criminals", and the similar 'conquest over "evil forces"'.
These quoted phrases have different meanings to different peoples around the world, but these causes form the foundation for causes which mankind's heroes have striven to achieve.
What are the American causes?
We can extrapolate these causes from the three foundations, with the application of American culture and values.
Americans can generally agree that children and civilians are innocent - while nearly universal, this view is particularly entrenched in the United States, in the face of indiscriminate terrorist attacks, where slaughter of citizens is not tolerated.
Justice can mean so many things in world, let alone in America. Some Americans think of justice in a re-distributive sense; most think of it as equality under the law; all think of it as punishing people for their crimes. How Americans define 'crimes' starts to involve American culture and history more than anything. Our puritan-based values vilify stealing, lying, arrogance, rape, murder (when not in the name of God), superstition. Our nation, founded on ideas of liberty and the inalienable rights of man, arising from the American Revolution, vilify oppression and inequality. The helpless in American's eyes tend to be the poor, the widowed, the homeless/landless, the children, and in their own category, women. The evil forces in American belief tend to be the aforementioned criminals. However, the historical development of United States has produced certain "evils" that still ring in the minds of Americans today: the untamed frontier, hostile Native American tribes, Hispanics, Nazis, Japanese, Communists - essentially, the savageness of humankind and nature.
Thus, our heroes thus become figures that fight these savages, defend the rule of law and our puritan traditions, protect women and children, while remaining honest and humble. Firefighters, policemen, soldiers, the romanticized Cowboy, and the charitable, become our American heroes.
What about other peoples?
China during the 1960s, during the Cultural Revolution, desperately needed heroes. Heroes are inseparable from and actually form a sense of national identity. They give the population a sense of purpose, a cause based on the universal causes. The state searched desperately for heroes. Naturally, the personality cult of Mao and his fellow Part leaders become natural heroes - they embodied the ideals and causes of the nation - but were ultimately unrelatable to the everyday struggles and routines of common people.
China found this hero in Leifeng - an army private raised by a Communist Party orphanage. Chairman Mao started a national campaign after his death to recognize Leifeng as the greatest national hero. Using staged photographs and a fake diary, the media/state claimed that he worked selflessly, lived modestly, defended the Chinese people, and served his national government. Chinese today still recognize Leifeng as the pinnacle embodiment of altruism and patriotism. His death, caused by being hit by an object from an army truck collision, occurred during service, and is thus seen as a national hero for sacrificing his life in service for the nation - making sacrifice for the good.
A montage of the iconic images of George W. Bush in his role of America's heroic leader.
Thanksgiving at Baghdad Intl Airport
Bush and firefighter Bob Beckwith on ruins of Ground Zero (referenced by Faludi)
President Bush's visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 to announce "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq saw the President become hero/soldier
Bush walking on deck of carrier as if pilot officer
Bush in jumpsuit alongside "fellow" fighter pilots
Bush posing with flight-deck crew
Bush in New Orleans after Katrina not only posed with firefighters and relief workers, but seemed to want to get down and dirty with them in the rescue efforts.
Bush rolls up his sleeves, "getting to work" with firefighters
Bush with National Guard holding chainsaw
Bush in New Orleans post-Katrina on April 27, 2006 repairing homes during National Volunteer Week
Images of President Bush at home on his Crawford, Texas ranch become supplemental to his masculine heroic image. Blogs such as "Manly's Republic" use this to align Bush and Reagan as opposites of more, what one reader called, "metrosexual" political leaders.
Below is a magazine cover I stumbled across that's highly relevant to Susan Faludi's "Cowboys of Yesterday". Title: "Love After 9/11" Enjoy.
What is a man, other than a human with a male physique? Our culture, supported by our innate need for ideals, created an ideal of manhood by selecting goals in every category (fashion, activities, speech, and emotions) that are to be pursued only by men. The idea of “being” a man is therefore defined by the degree to which a male can pursue and identify with these “man-like” ideals.
This ideal of manhood is disconnected from the reality of “being” a man, since each individual man has a wide range of lifestyles, interests, identities, many of which are dissimilar from the goals identified by manhood.
Being a man in a highly physical American consumer culture relates as much to the consumption of ideas, products and identities as much as gender roles at various stages of life. We will look at this consumption aspect first.
Media Consumption
Generations obsessed over Indiana Jones
The media consumption in line with solid manhood focuses around three genres: action/adventure, comedy, and thriller/horror. While American men openly enjoy two quick blinks of romance buried in an action show/movie/book/comic/song, romance is viewed as excessively feminine by American culture, which opposes the idea of manhood. Comedy is masculine (note clips shown in film trailers) if it arrives at the expense of another’s manhood and honor (which supports one’s own ego).
Activities
Sports, violence (not that they are mutually exclusive) form the base for all activities that verify manhood. I recall a poll of American high-school students that revealed most men and less than half of women view sports as a competition, while most women and few men viewed as mainly about exercise or fun. An online Newsweek feature said:
“War has been, for almost all peoples and all times, the purest test of manhood…How many men, over how many millennia, have wanted to know how they would do in combat? Would they be brave and fight? Or would they cringe and run?”
The attraction of sport lies in conflict
Physical, individual confrontation tie all games, weapons and guns, all sports, militarism, “bigger-and-better” arms-race consumerism, and betting/gambling together to manhood. What men mean/become to themselves and each other is achieved through tests of manhood – competitions of courage, intimidation and physical strength. This is why women who engage in this are seen as unfeminine – reference lack of female professional sports, Hillary Clinton, Merkel, Thatcher, and female suicide bombers on the cover of the New York Times.
Adolescence/Independence
The young man, independent man, plays a different role and thus is a different man than a married man. His ideal role can be evaluated from present-day television dramas that highlight or exaggerate realities of American culture and lifestyle.
Desperate Housewives follows and develops a range of adolescent and independent male characters; Andrew, Preston and Porter are the most consistent ones,appearing for countless seasons. The young men create a narrative of manhood through their interactions with masculine activities or culture.
Approaching this question, one must consider the meanings of “American” and “woman”.
Firstly, of the three hundred million Americans, each maintains their own cultural, political, religious, ethnic, and socio-economic differences. These differences are encouraged as part of our free-thinking, indepdendent political culture. Secondly, womanhood is a combination of different roles and stages of life that a woman, as opposed to the only alternative we are considering (man), could and should experience – this is where the idea of womanhood becomes tricky.
A woman can be an adolescent, lover, worker, wife, mother, grandmother…and the list goes on. We define a woman by what label we associate the individual woman with – as humans do to people and objects. As Socrates argued, the degree to which a person is considered “to have virtue” depends on the extent to which the person fulfills their role, or “own work”, “well”. Therefore, given that women (who engage with other people in a social setting) fulfill roles with certain responsibilities and work, our judgment about a woman arises from the degree to which a woman fulfills the work expected by the role the observer perceives her to be fulfilling, which can vary in different instances since a woman can fulfill multiple roles.
The meaning of being an American woman thus arises from the roles that American women fulfill relative to the roles other women fulfill.
Many of us think of Japanese women as having virtues of modesty, filial piety as a daughter, obedience as a wife, and hardworking/devotion as workers. We may view Western European women with a radically different image: fun-loving as a young adult, independent, strong-willed, and late-marrying. All of these ideas about women derive their substance by the culture they’re associated with.
What roles do American women fulfill that are uniquely American, and what does our culture say about our views of women in those roles?
Alexis de Tocqueville answers these questions as an outsider peering in to America from a traditional, aristocratic Europe nearly two centuries ago. He believed American women were radically different during youth and marriage. However, he believed that American women of all social and economic disparities had certain universal characteristics. His observations of American women, independent of those of European women, are applicable and reinforce my perception of the meaning of American womanhood today.
American women as children and adolescents in the family structure fulfill similar roles as their male counterparts - brothers. Girls compete with their brothers and sisters academically, expand socially and revel in social groupings of choice. Girls pursue sports or the arts, with or without parental guidance, almost as freely as men do; however, girls are discouraged from being overly competitive and involved in more aggressive sports, since American culture deems it to detract from femininity.
As the girls and boys approach sexual maturity, both may assume the role of lovers. It is in the fulfillment of this role that the sexes assume different expectations by family and peers: women are encouraged to be passive in relationships, modest in sexual dealings and, and above all, expected to defend their virginity until the pressure to do so fades (usually after emancipation from the family, or parental consent, given the still dominant role of the family in most of America).
To allow for the mutual acknowledgement of such expectations by both daughter and parents, daughters are educated of their expectations through family (modesty), school (abstinence), the media (passivity), and religions that have laid the foundation of American culture (puritan forms of Christianity). The transition from parental guidance to independence is often seamless, as young American women are prepared to enter the world, armed with the knowledge and emotional strength they developed as adolescents.
More generally though, independent women in America are educated (often to the same level of men), to be made more aware of the world’s opportunities and vices, and how to protect themselves from those evils. An independent woman is seen as more competent when she can resist temptations or overpowering forces, and forge successful relationships.
While independence of the mind and body is favored as an independent woman, the roles of women change upon marriage. Through social pressure and education, a woman realizes the need for security and enduring happiness and sees marriage as a method of permanently achieving these goals. She sacrifices the independence of her mind and body for her husband, understanding that men expect this of women in marriage. However, she does not give up her ability to be competent in performing tasks, and is expected to continue the work ethic of her independent life, understanding that men want this in a marriage too.
Thus, a married American woman is strong emotionally and intellectually, but willingly submits to her husband as part of this mutually beneficial social contract.
Deng Xiaoping's 1979 reforms opened China's frail, Communist, isolated command economy to the invigorating forces of foreign financial and industrial capital. Since then, China has imported a number of things, at an ever increasing rate; one of these new ideas , is consumerism.
Anne Leonard's short documentary, The Story of Stuff, simplified the Work-Watch-Buy cycle of people absorbed in consumer-culture. There was a time, during the era of Mao, when people were citizens, and when people lived lives free from the temptation to buy everything they could, and spend everything they had.
A 1950s-era Chinese family gathers around a meal in the People's Communes; they live a simple life - the only option afforded to them by the economic system of local self-sufficiency and government cupons.
Living simple lives, the Chinese peasants and urban proletariats alike fulfill the stereyotypes of their societal role, armed with the characteristic tools of their work. In these posters, the hard working characters/models do not indulge in physical or material pleasures, but are enticed to live life only as productive members of society, and not consumers that seek to live life lavishly.
Propaganda posters of the times function as the advertising of the Chinese people under communism: they sell to the public ideas about work, education, "society", politics, and the world - ideas formulated by a public relations bureau somewhere in the halls of Chinese government. In the absence of commercial advertising, social advertising as such reflect the ideals of the people, or at least the ideals that the people are meant to have.
The ideals sold to the American public about the meaning of life, through the advertising of products marketed as means to that end goal of life, were very different at the time.
The advertising of the 1950s and 60s united family values developed through American history with material objects. Pastimes, family rituals, sacred family spaces, even the idea of love, were tied to commerical goods. Americans tied happiness and the goals of life to material consumption, and the cycle of Work-Watch-Shop described byLeonard began.
How did consumerism manifest itself in China? Socio-economic forces during the 1960s and 70s pushed China to experiment with currency, free-enterprise, international trade, and private investment. The political event of Mao's death allowed capitalist-leaning ideologues to rise to the highest levels of government, bellowing calls for social and economic reform.
Today, China's urban youth and middle-aged population save less, and consume more of every dollar they recieve. Chinese youth splurge on electronics, fashion, entertainment - none of which are exclusive to the younger generation.
Since incomes of younger Chinese are not neccesarily higher than average, and their exposure to material goods is not greater than any other urbanite, there has to be deeper cultural forces at work changing the younger generation.
Simple economic reform does not explain change in attitudes toward consumption. However, economic reform has allowed an influx of Western-versions of the corporation, media, and advertising - all of which are the spokes holding together the spiral of consumption in the West.
The day after Andover was out for winter term, I was in Manhattan with my mother who had flown in from Beijing. We both checked into the hotel and rushed to get ready for the three day "Women in the World" conference my mother was attending.
The star-studded guest speakers line up was jaw-dropping. I was looking forward to sitting before and asking questions of Hillary Clinton, Meryl Streep, Queen Rania, Christine Amanpour, Katie Couric, Campbell Brown, Diane Sawyer, and Juju Chang, and some other female business, media and political/feminist leaders.
The conference was held in a fancy midtown hotel decorated with surveillance and security equipment, spotted with Secret Service lurking near curtains and doors. The press lined up outside the hotel as the speakers arrived for the dinner. I sat at a table of complete strangers, far to the side of the room away from the celebrities in the middle, that turned out to be filled with the most interesting of guests (one of which was the best-selling author of one of my favorite controversial non-fiction Becoming Madame Mao and another that was a 98' Andover alumnae).
At that evening's three course dinner decorated with a lavish butterfly theme and bright orange (to blatantly advertise the sponsor's new laptops) with hundreds of people (mainly women in their 50s), the dinner enjoyed an inspiring speech and toast by Melanne Verveer - the U.S. Ambassador-at-large on Global Women's Issues. Here, she said (to quote loosely): "The 19th century was defined by the fight against slavery. The 20th was defined by the struggle for civil rights. And the 2st century will be defined by the quest for women's rights." This was a point later paraphrased by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her speech. Coming from two of the major foriegn-policy gurus of the United States, the radical role they saw women's rights playing in the future discussion of international relations and major issues was none other than an astounding level of foresight and confidence in this era's possibilities for unlocking women's rights and the potential of women.
Both Clinton and Verveer spoke that night
How women viewed the world, and how women participated in shaping the world, has never been an important question in international relations until more recent decades. In modern international relations discussion (which I am studying now), feminism is placed alongside the great schools of thought i.e. realism, liberalism, marxism, constructivism as an explanation of historical and current international trends, as well as being a valid direction for future foreign policy.
The school of thought called 'feminism' is based on the idea that gender-inequality, gender-conflicts and male dominance are fundamentals in understanding the functions of nations and peoples. This school seeks to create a new world order where inequalities between genders are eliminated, and equality is domestically and internationally enforced. They believe that violations of women's rights, such as sexual slavery, genital mutilation, honor killings, denial of access to education, legal and social acceptance of abuse against women, should be on par with issues such as censorship, liberalizing trade, nuclear nonproliferation, and others of environmental concern, etc.
Alexis de Tocqueville records the emotions, actions, and organization of America in the first half of the 19th century. He analyzes American family and gender roles, and contrasts what he finds to his understanding of generalized European familial and gender trends.
He distinguishes greatly between the more "aristocratic" social traditions of Europe in the early Victorian Era, and those of the "demcoratic" Americans of the same time period.
He observes the American and European approach to education of young women, and the youth in general. He says:
"In France...education of women commonly receive a reserved, retired, and almost cloistral education, as they did in aristocratic times; and then they are suddenly abandoned, without a guide and without assistance, in the midst of all the irregularities inseparable from democratic society. The Americans are more consistent. They have found out that in a democracy theindependence of individuals cannot fail to be very great, youth premature, tastes ill-restrained, customs fleeting, public opinion often unsettled and powerless, paternal authority weak, and marital authority contested.
[Americans] held that the surer way was to teach her the art of combating those passions for herself. As they could not prevent her virtue from being exposed to frequent danger, they determined that she should know how best to defend it; and more reliance was placed on the free vigor of her will than on safeguards.
Thus the vices and dangers of society are early revealed to her; as she sees them clearly, she views them without illusions, and braves them without fear; for she is full of reliance on her own strength, and her reliance seems to be shared by all [Americans] who are about her.
Far from hiding the corruptions of the world from her, they prefer that she should see them at once and train herself to shun them; and they hold it of more importance to protect her conduct than to be over-scrupulous of her innocence. "
The approach taken here by 19th century Americans toward education is to encourage the independence, awareness, rationality, and moral decision making by American women, and American youth since such edcuation by the parents, taking place in the family, would be imposed upon all children.
He charges Europeans with being of a different, or opposite mentality: encouraging the display of "childish timidity or ignorance" and promoting the "innocent and ingenuous grace which usually attends the European woman in the transition from girlhood to youth."
The America he describes here, in contrast to Europe, could not be more different in our day and age. If anything, the roles between Europeans and Americans are reversed concerning the aforementioned individuality and pre-mature adulthood of youth.
The public policies of a people, if approved and enacted through a democratic system, should reflect the morality of the majority - or at least the ideals of a people. Thus, how the law dictates individuals may interact with the "irregularities", "vices and dangers of society" reflects the public's moral attitude toward these vices.
How Europeans today expose their youth to these vices is almost how Americans were described as doing so almost two centuries ago.
How Americans and Europeans choose to expose and prepare our youth for alcohol says much about the reversal of the two sides of the Atlantic.
For example, the United Kingdom has a legal drinking age of 5 years old, and a minimum public drinking age of 16. Almost all European countries have similar laws allowing alcohol consumption by children in the home, and alcohol purchasing ages around 18. The clear disparity in the public-private consumption laws reflects the European family's belief of having the freedom to educate their children about alcohol before becoming an adult.
The use of these freedoms were proved by a European Union special report stated that "nearly all 15-16 year old students have drunk alcohol...on average beginning to drink at 12½ years of age". Most of this consumption occurs either in their own home or another's home, and was the same for girls, the report said. The report said drinking in restaurants and bars (with parents) was also common.
All states ban the purchase and consumption of alcohol in public under the age of 21, with almost all banning private consumption in the home under 18. The federal government of the United States penalizes states that do not honor a 21 drinking age minimum.
As one article put it "with the focus on education about safe drinking instead of restriction...[Europeans] claim many problems are avoided. Though the per capita consumption of alcohol in countries like France, Spain, and Portugal is greater than in the U.S., the rate of alcoholism and alcohol abuse is lower. This comes from education of gradual drinking, which leads to less incidents of young adults getting drunk." Most Americans do not think this way.
A European Union Report says "In comparison to the rest of the world, the countries of Europe are less likely to have a number of [alcohol control] policies, especially those based on market restrictions or taxation." European belief about a wide exposure and recognition of such "temptations" is very similar to Tocqueville's percieved American beliefs.As evidenced by and in addition to the aforementioned quotes, Tocqueville very directly mentions American and European attitudes towards pre-marital sex and the education of women about sex. He says American women understand "the costs of pleasing" and protect their "virtue" with reason and a strong moral consciousness.
To what extent this mentality is fostered by education in the family is questionable since most families do not actively discuss such topics with children. Most sex education takes place through the school, and only to a much lesser extent, the media.
The Guttmacher Institute says the following about U.S. sex education:
In 1999, one in four sex education teachers taught abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy and STIs.
On top of the 31% of U.S. school districts that only permit abstinence sex education, the other 51% of school districts have a policy to teach abstinence as the preferred option for teens.
"There is currently no federal program dedicated to supporting comprehensive sex education that teaches young people about both abstinence and contraception". However, "there are three federal programs dedicated to funding restrictive abstinence-only education...the total funding for these programs is $176 million for FY 2006."
Abstinence education has its grounds in moral education - moral education being a very American characteristic and approach to vices, according to Tocqueville. Abstinence education teaches youths about the presence of pre-marital sexual opportunities in reality, and it also teaches these youths to recognize it and avoid it (to "see it at once...to shun them" as Tocqueville says). However, the fact that so many school districts refuse to teach youths how to deal with such opportunities responsibly, using reason reinforced by education, serves to reveal that Americans may no longer be arming their youths with the "reason" and trusting "the free vigor of [their] will" to make decisions.
Europeans seem to be doing a better job at educating children about the subject in public schools. Most countries have mandated sex-education since the 1970s. In France, "schools are expected to provide 30 to 40 hours of sex education, and pass out condoms, to students in grades eight and nine." The government also launched information campaigns on contraception with TV, radio spots and the distribution of five million leaflets on contraception to high school students. For example, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Finland offer mandatory comprehensive sex education, with the Dutch system seen as the most successful at lowering teenage pregnancy.
These modern trends may hint at the reversal of stereotypes between Europe and America. Or in fact, just a sign that Europe has changed, while America remains the same, with the difference being discouraging "immoral" activity through law instead of social pressure. Either way, the use of laws and government policy to enforce morality in America can also be seen however, as a reversal of our trust in the independence and individuality of Americans - thus supporting the conclusion that America no longer teaches its youth to act independently and responsibly, but to act as a great power says so, similar to the religious and social pressures that confined Europeans two centuries ago.
The American media twists the narrative of terrorism to produce worthy victims in line with our political ideologies and sympathies: sympathizing with Russian citizens for a terrorist bombing associated with their state's oppression of Chechnya; sympathizing with Iraqis killed in bombings by extremists many Iraqis clandestinely support; the news narratives tend to reflect the majority viewpoint
Does the media create narratives and worthy victims/heroes elsewhere, evolving around a different theme? Do different levels of news see the same story with a different narrative and victim?
The 2nd Amendment political action group Buckeye Firearms certainly believes so. Tim Inwood writes that "sensational stories dealing with the misuse of firearms always seem to make the headlines, and if the body count is high enough they go national. However, we almost never hear of a positive use of a firearm in the defense of the innocent stopping a slaughter." Is this a common narrative? I looked at several articles dealing with home invasions to see if the latter part of his thesis is true.
At 1:30am, two masked gunmen burst into a Daytona Beach home, pointing a gun at 37-year-old Randal Mckee. Mckee’s 32-year-old roommate pulled out his own gun and fired at the gunmen; both gunmen fled. The gunmen had connections with drugs and that the violent home invasion was not a random act. No report of this incident on the national news.
A local Washington State news station released this interesting report about a senior citizen's self-defense, two weeks after losing his wife. Again, no mention on the national news.
The Orlando Sentinel released this article with this lede: "Charles Johnson is a man of his word. On Oct. 4, 1936, then 19, Johnson promised to love and protect his bride, Berlie Mae." The 91 year old saves his wife when the couple are held at gunpoint in their own home by firing at the gunmen with a hidden pistol under his seat. The situation was portrayed a story of heroics, elderly love, and youthfulness. Did this make the national media? CNN, MSNBC, and CBS archives indicate no.
A Phoenix, Arizona news outlet reported a home invasion where four men were taken captive by gunmen that demanded money from them. One captive found a shotgun, killing a gunman and injuring the other. As far as stories are archived, it was not mention on national news.
A Bakersfield, California elderly man was at home with his wife and grandson. When the 9 year old grandson noticed a burglary, the grandfather confronted the burglar which leveled at rifle at him. Before the burglar could shoot, the grandfather stunned the burglar with a shot, and held him until the police could arrive. This story, covered extensively by The Californian with pictures and quotes, never made any other non-local news outlet.
Atlanta, Georgia college students were having a birthday party when two armed gunmen entered the apartment, separated the men and women at gunpoint, and demanded cash and cell phones. The men checked for ammo to ensure they "had enough" to kill the ten students. As one gunman prepared to rape an armed student's girlfriend, the armed student pulled a shotgun out of his backpack and shot both gunmen, saving ten people's lives. "His intent was to rape and murder us all", a student said. The story was never reported on national media.
Does the national news ever report violent home invasions? All the time. National news outlet MSNBC reported this story where a woman was held a gunpoint in her home as they robbed her house. They also reported this story where a woman was locked in her bathroom as gunmen again robbed her home. Home invasions seem to be newsworthy subjects for national news outlets.
Nationally, murders of defenseless, unarmed civilians always make the national news. The murder of a four member family "shook the suburban community, prompted legislative changes in the state, and attracted the attention of the national media", according to CNN. Sob stories of home invasion murders, involving one death, children, or a gang of gunmen, easily attract national news media attention. National news media frequently post videos of footage of gunmen in the security camera along with 911 calls. The murder of an unarmed woman, barricaded in her home, was reported by CBS. The New York Times also has articles on home invasions, such as this one in Florida, in different parts of the country where a murder occurs. They also reported a home invasion by gunmen that assaulted a woman.
Anywhere one turns, horrifying home-invasions of a helpless victim, murdered by people wielding guns, makes the news. Car chases, arrests, hostage situations that involve no-heroism and no-violence frequently make prime time news. Stories of armed citizens confronting these gunmen and saving the lives of several other people don't. Media has a responsibility to reveal injustices, especially when people die as a direct or indirect result of a law. In fact, when injustices arise concerning racial or gender discrimination, corporate abuse, and the environment, news media hard news stories and commentators can be highly vocal - whenever the media outlet believes such discussion is inline with its corporate interests. When it comes to armed self-defense, however, things change.
When an Illinois resident man used a handgun, purchased legally years before, in self-defense against a burglar that had stolen his keys the day before, Wilimette village officials pressed charges for violation of the township's local hand gun ban.
An Ohio woman watched helplessly as an armed gunman confronted her husband and shot him. Although owning a concealed carry permit, she had to leave her gun in her parked car due to a law banning handguns in restaurants. The woman testified in an Ohio Congressional hearing which was considering reforming the law. The injustice associated with the law and her story was nowhere to be found on national media. What does this say about the media's priorities and belief about worthy victims and heroes? Reading the reader's comments of the Bakersfield self-defense incident, I noticed that everyone praised and revered the grandfather as a hero for his actions.
If the national news media ever covered self-defense incidents, I would wonder what their narrative toward these gun owners would be. Would it be like the Toledo Tribune's editorial that condemned store-keepers for using guns in defense against armed robbery? Or would the alternative - heroism for those that defend themselves - seem to unattractive to a media conglomerates heavily vested in promoting certain ideologies, and appealing to a politically-homogeneous, loyal viewership.
Is the mainstream media's ignorance toward stories of heroic self-defense (like that of ninth-grader Jeff May during a school massacre) as Tim Inwood claims in his essay, a reflection of a new attitude about self-empowerment in American minds, which Nietzsche has called a 'slave-mentality'? A sign of changing perceptions in America? Such a narrative begs a reconsideration of the idea of America - the idea that America is as a land and home of the free and brave.
"Ah, yes: Wisteria Lane", the narrator would say. "The most charming of neighborhoods; the most flawless of characters; the most perfect of families; the most ideal of lifestyles." Oh, but beneath this facade, brews unhappiness, envy, and desire -petty drama and pointless conflicts of grave, unintended consequences.
The show begins with the suicide of an unhappy housewife. And every following episode of the show is a dramatized, comic social commentary of the archetypal, seemingly perfect, American family and way of life. Let's start with Bree Van de Kamp - the stereotypical White, conservative housewife in the most traditional, suburban sense. Writers portray her as a super-housewife: cooking and baking gourmet dishes and pies, obsessively-compulsively neat and organized, materially caring for her husband and son.
She is and continues to be a stoic and depressed housewives like many claimed to have been by the 1960s. She fails to provide sexual care for her husband, and emotional care towards both her husband and son. Her husband, with his "naturally " sexual desires, turns to a prostitute, and leaves the wife. It is portrayed as a failure by Bree to satisfy the bread-winner of the family, and he threatens divorce. It is only after Bree reluctantly sacrifices her perceived rock-solid moral-righteousness and attempts taboo sexual practices with her husband that he returns to their superficial marriage. Sounds like the all too stereotypical marriage as highlighted in The Way We Never Were.
Ah, but there is more in store for Bree. The idea of Bree's all-American family continues to be challenged. One thing no one expects from a 1950s sitcom family is for a son or daughter to be sexually active and/or gay. The son and daughter, both highly promiscuous, intentionally flaunt their sexuality before Bree. Bree handles the situation badly and eventually abandons both her children. Her liquor in the linen closet into alcoholism when faced with the realities of domestic conflicts. While the drama is naturally exaggerated by Hollywood, the show's great themes about the realities corrupting the American housewife and family, permeate throughout the show.
Bree again challenges the traditional role of housewife when she becomes a successful caterer, cooking phenomenon, and a female icon; a Martha Stewart of sorts. She advocates tradition, female domesticity, and the return to "old-fashioned values". However, her work alienates her from friends and new husband Orson who has experienced a reversal of gender roles. He becomes enraged by frequently returning home to eat takeaways alone, and envious of his wife's success. After losing his job, Orson is so ashamed at his diminished role in the marriage that he fakes going to the office everyday to save face. (start video at 1:30) Orson later becomes evil when he successfully forces Bree to serve him "as a wife should", threatening her with blackmail if she focuses too much on her career.
Lynette Scavo, a housewife in her 40s with four children, has a load on her hands. She faces similar problems when she becomes the boss of her husband Tom and has to fire him. The husband, confused by his reversal of gender roles, starts a rampage of projects. Lynette calls it a mid-life-crisis. He starts a Pizzeria, band, working on an old car, and gets bored with taking care of the kids. The wife is thus put in nontraditional roles: being the bread-winner and standing up against her husband's desires/recklessness.
Always too exhausted after work, Lynette does not sexually cater to Tom after work. Tom frequently ventures out, and Lynette, after spying on him, is convinced he is cheating on her. So, Lynette is forced to start role-playing and cater to his fetishes in order to save the marriage. Lynette's worsening exhaustion means she longer can continue fulfilling the role of the housewife and breadwinner.
Lynette hides being pregnant from her boss out of fear of being fired and leaving her family without any income. She is discovered and fired, and confronts the difficult "reality" that a housewife with children can never be the breadwinner.
The former model, Gabriela Solis, has a nervous breakdown as she loses her beauty, sex appeal, and glamor after marriage. Susan Myer's failed marriages frequently leads to nostalgia and regret. The deeper one delves into these suburban characters, the more these hidden conflicts come to light.
Every character in the show plays their part in challenging and fulfilling the stereotypes of the traditional, suburban American family. The great theme of the show seems to be that housewives are unhappy with the traditional role of domestic servitude, but will always be unable to escape the role and the responsibilities that come with it.
Oh, the memories from back home: sitting on sofas with the family, eyes peeled to the television, eyes tearing up from laughter.
Whether in black and white or Technicolor, the shows from my father's childhood are still funny today - hilarious in fact. Oh, classic shows like... I Love Lucy Hogan's Heroes Gilligan's Island The Andy Griffith Show The Beverly Hillbillies My Three Sons Michale's Navy F-Troop The Waltons The Adams Family The Brandy Bunch (even though that was a little later) Red Skelton Gunsmoke Green Acres and its sibling Petticoat Junction
These classic shows posses something that TV lacks today: family suitability. The humor, the lessons, the themes, are always good-natured and worthy of being respected. In every one of these shows, courtesy, decency, humility, and piety are always encouraged by the parental figures in the show. In Andy Griffith, childhood lessons about envy, diligence, honesty are consistently taught by Andy the father or Aunt Bee the caretaker to the more childish characters in an episode: Opie (Andy's son) and Barney Fife (Andy's Deputy). One episode stands out in my mind as an example of the moral education championed by these early shows.
"If we don't teach children to live in society today, what's going to happen to them when they grow up" justifies the moral education that permeates throughout this episode. 'Opie and the Spoiled Kid' served to teach hard work, respect for the law, respect for parents, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, while discouraging greed, dishonesty, and materialism.
Unlike the classic animated Disney movies of the 1990s, the audience of this show is not mainly comprised of children - but adults. The role cast by the delinquent boy's father, with his failure to educate his son, serves to impose upon adults a responsibility to educate and guide children or other people on a more "moral" path. The nature of the audience, combined with
The fact that this episode, of the dozens of Andy Griffith episodes, sticks in my mind most, I think is testament to the power of a fable when it becomes the dominant plot of a show like this.
I also remember an episode from Petticoat Junction, where two young men staying at the main characters' Bed&Breakfast Hotel try to rob a train. The heist fails when the safe is empty, and the family resumes normal life, ignoring the robbers trying to rob their house while holding the family at gunpoint. The episode concludes with a scene where the family, all gathered around the table at dinnertime, defends these "harmless, good-natured boys" from the sherriff. The family forgives them of their crimes, and the boys acknowledge their crime and respect the family for their forgivness, ending the episode on a note of "happily ever after".
It seems that everywhere one looks in these shows, moral education permeates. The main plots of episodes - where vengeful businessmen lose their job, German Commodants give in to mercy, or weird-looking Adams children stand up to bullying - defined and encouraged morality for an entire generation of American audiences.
I remember my father once rhetorically asked us: "aren't these shows different than what we see on TV today?" to which he answered "[the older shows] don't make us look at what's wrong with a shrug of acceptance. They make us see them as something that shouldn't happen and ought to be corrected." Such a generalization by nature does not apply to every show, but does highlight an important truth about the contrast between the purpose of these skits. Like the difference between a fable and non-fiction, the contrast lies between what should be, and what is. It provides a compass for action in fields beyond gender and family roles: our role as human beings in our corresponding communities.
Is it more that our communities have changed? ...that substance and human abuse, theft, and dishonesty are more prevalent? I would think not. But what has changed is the way in which humans visualize these elements: as inescapable elements of human nature and human life.
