Part of the work I find myself doing within the confines of "pop culture studies," is a blending of rhetorical and cultural theory. I see the former as a shaper of the latter, so they're intertwined for me. Rhetorical practices are, in very real ways, part of what shapes culture through our articulation of culture itself. One cannot "name" a cultural artifact without using rhetorical strategies, particularly when positing something of cultural value, or what some theorists call "cultural capital."
While encountering texts, or pop culture artifacts, I find myself employing Krista Ratcliffe's notion of "rhetorical listening" to see if I can listen "across differences" in order to make meanings outside of my sociopolitical constructions. In this particular entry, I'm thinking of the ways in which culture limits male articulations of masculinity and "manhood," how it partitions men as "breadwinners" and literally "sizes them up."
Of particular interest to me is how this work is done within class distinctions, and the ways in which artists and media "play" with those categories. In this clip from Blue Collar TV, for example, one can note how class is represented, and how language (rhetoric) is used. Comedy reveals many larger cultural "truths" - but it also makes fun of them, as this clip certainly does:
Blue Collar TV
The above clip is an embodied portrayal, through language "play," of the ways in which men are sorted by culture and stereotypes. Though on the surface, this seems like just plain fun, there are some larger sociopolitical issues at work here. Prowess, or male worth, is defined by size. And it's interesting to me how this concept is filtered through what I've called "HGTV mentality" - the location of the home as the site for identity representation. In this case, we're talking "decks," but these have often been spaces associated with "the man's world" - the literal outside of a home ("the woman's domain").
I'm also thinking about the ways in which culture provides women with "space" for self-improvement with shows like "Oprah" and the entire self-help book industry. It's accepted cultural capital, that women can change themselves inside and out, can tinker with "who they are," and I believe this may be, in large part, because to keep women exploring Self is very profitable. Shows like TLC's "What Not to Wear" posit women's fashion as identity representation, and demonstrate "transformation." At the end of each show, the guest is "transformed" into a "new self," one with some fashion sense and a good haircut. Though I won't deny that clothes themselves serve as a rhetoric of representation, I also cannot deny that this type of rhetorical framing within the "What Not to Wear" construct, also positions those women at the end of each program as "informed" fashion consumers. They will now purchase clothes according to the "plan" outlined for them by "experts," and each guest gushes with gratitude for finally knowing "what to buy" for their bodies.
It's a fascinating thing, really.
Oppositional to this concept is the ways in which men are positioned within culture to represent "stability." A consumerist economy needs reliable actors, who have predictable earning and spending roles. In this way, men are not positioned as people who can "re-invent" who they are. When they do, as those who hit midlife and want to either reclaim parts of themselves they have lost, or explore parts of them left untended, society positions this as a "crisis." This is guilt/blame logic, and I believe it keeps men in a position of economic reliability. Though I do see some move in media to represent men as changing beings, culture at large does not accept this. In fact, younger men who experiment with identity, who don't gravitate to "careers" quickly enough, are often told they need to "settle on something," or that they need to "get a good job" so that they can "support a family."
It's not that these aren't worthy goals, but it is interesting to me that men are not affording the cultural capital of self exploration. Those who don't get into a job and "purpose" quickly enough are often labeled as "listless" or "immature" - and are seen as juveniles. I believe this sorting is mostly about social stratification that can justify older males' control of work culture - after all, it's an older male who often initiates the younger male into career management.
In the following film, a man is having a midlife crisis. Pay close attention to the rhetoric of imagery, and the social tropes used to bend or affirm stereotypes about men:
Midlife Crisis by Natalie Weintraub
No comments:
Post a Comment