Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Teen comedy films: patriarchal privilege and the white, middle-class male


Infantile manhood of the privileged white male: the boys from American Pie

Film, like most media, not only constructs particular youth identities, it shapes the audience's understanding of them (Mallan & Pearce, 2003).  Representations of youth, particularly young males, foster a certain "patriarchal privilege" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998) that provides a basis for exploration of masculine identity.  This is specifically observed in vulgar teen comedy films, where youth identities are defined through conflict with the world around them.  Moreover, this conflict reflects the social and economic context of youth at the time of the film's production.  This entry responds to Speed (2010), whose article, 'Loose Cannons: White Masculinity and the Vulgar Teen Comedy Film', explores how social forces influence the type of male youth on screen and his heroic qualities.  The article tracks the progression of teen comedies from the 1970s to the late 1990s, focusing on gender identity formation and, specifically in relation to the male characters, the pursuit of sexual mastery.  Ultimately, it will be shown that such representations of (young) men are limited, but educators can use such films as valuable teaching resources.

While there are some marked differences in contemporary vulgar teen comedies, some elements have remained unchanged.  Speed (2010, p. 821) identifies three specific 'cycles', each with their own characteristics.  Teen comedies of the 1970s, largely influenced by the social movements of the 1960s, foreground the "defiance of institutional authority" (ibid.), usually by young men rather than teenagers.  In the 1980s, films such as Porky's portrayed teenagers engaging in more sexual activity with less focus on resisting social institutions; there was an "absence of belief in youth's capacity to expand social and cultural boundaries" (p. 824).  By the 1990s, vulgar teen comedies, such as American Pie or Road Trip, privileged the "pursuit of sex over subversive acts" (ibid.) with an increasing "suburbanization" of teenage sexuality.  Furthermore, the chief problem to resolve in such films was the "failure of the male sexual quest" (ibid., p. 825).  Despite differences in social contexts, two assumptions about youth masculinity remain constant through the cycles.  Firstly, teen boys have a cultural space of their own in which they can revel and rebel, seemingly immune from any consequence.  Greven (2002, p. 15) explains that teen comedies "exploit this special zone of identity" for male characters.  Secondly, the type of masculinity that is privileged in all films is one that is dominant and "terrorizes those who are weak and/or different" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998, p. 125).  Given their popularity, vulgar teen comedies are worthy of critique, particularly with respect to the repeated messages consumed by generations of young male viewers.

A regular moral panic is that popular culture is responsible for the disappearance of childhood; in other words, it is corrupting our youth (Brooks, 2008).  It could be argued that teen comedies shape this perception as the world of the film is often represented in a similar way.  At the core of teen comedies is the crisis of youth masculinity for the comfortable, middle-class white male.  Being so intent on "proving maleness" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998, p. 112), there is a decline in social advancement and an "absence of social perspective" (Speed, 2010, p. 828).  Unlike earlier cycles, teen comedies from the 1990s onwards project characters whose purpose is detached from any social or political agenda.  Characters are launched on a quest for sex, often as a road trip, as a means of transitioning into adulthood.  Such representations can easily be blamed for contributing to the "toxic effect" (Brooks, 2008, p. 3) of popular culture on youth.

Speed (2010) asserts that for male characters in vulgar teen comedies social freedom is derived from the hedonistic adventures of the road trip.  These white, middle-class young men can be understood as the archetypal "maverick heroes" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998) who do things their own way and exist outside regular social boundaries.  While they elicit sympathy at first, viewers often end up repulsed by the attitude that, as privileged males, they are "entitled to misbehave" and have the capacity to "recreate chaos and destruction" (ibid., p. 109) without any ramifications.  Such depictions work to "imprint a hatred and fear of youth" (ibid., p. 111) beyond the film, which is counterproductive and fuels unease about the place of media in the lives of young people. 

As well as being a privileged, white, middle-class male, it is the favourable representation of a patriarchal order that is also of concern in vulgar teen comedies.  Conflict is often linked to encounters with differences in class or gender, in that those who live and behave outside the familiar territory of the protagonist suffer (Speed, 2010, p. 831).  For example, in pursuit of their manliness, women are violated and exploited without any consequence for the male character: "women ultimately exist as sexual objects to 'service' male needs" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998, p. 114).  Indeed, some female characters, such as in American Pie, educate their male friends to help them on their sexual quest.  Likened to sitcoms featuring mismatched couples, such representations of gender "encourage viewers to accept patriarchy as a 'natural' male trait and trivialize sexism as a laughing matter" (Walsh, Fursich & Jefferson, 2008, p. 123).  As one of the recurring depictions of male characters, it is also one of the most confronting.

Vulgar teen comedies repeat messages of masculinity that serve to perpetuate attitudes and beliefs about being a 'real man'.  In an exploration of cultivation theory, Shanahan and Morgan (1999, p. 15) expose "media's role in social control" as it defines our assumptions and nurtures particular worldviews.  For youth, who are the receivers of countless messages about gender at a time when they are searching for their own expression of identity, the adult world seems strange and dull (Greven, 2002, p. 15).  The final destination of the road trip is the metaphoric adult world; however, the behaviour of men in the adult sphere is hardly different from the immaturity of younger generations.  Indeed, the rise in vulgarity and juvenile humour has been ascribed to teen comedies as they continually represent an "infantile stage in...manhood" (ibid., p. 21), particularly in recent decades.  With the repetition of such identities, young viewers' understanding of gender identity becomes devoid of any "insight into its social positioning" (Speed, 2010, p. 837) and consumed with individual rather than group priorities.

The main point to take from Speed (2010) is that youth masculinity is still in crisis.  Each cycle of films embeds specific social and political concerns of the day into the characters' actions and attitudes.  The notion of privilege within white middle-class is something of which we should be critical, as it carries assumed entitlements that are unjust, insensitive and often immoral.  Being aware of these issues would help educators see such films as opportunities to connect with students and engage in meaningful discussion about cultural assumptions and gender constructs.  Some claim that most men are "more insecure with their masculinity than they let their peers, parents and teachers know" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998, p. 124).  As such, a deliberate exploration of masculine identity beyond the narrow representations in comedy films is needed.  Alternatively, a study of how humour is used to construct characters and social scenarios would be worthwhile.  Moreover, the texts need to be viewed with a goal for greater understanding of difference, diversity and justice.

Greg

REFERENCES

Brooks, K. (2008). Consuming innocence: popular culture and our children. St Lucia, QLD: UQP.

Greven, D. (2002). Dude, where's my gender? Contemporary teen comedies and new forms of American masculinity. Cineaste, 27(3), 14-21.

Mallan, K., & Pearce, S. (2003). Introduction: tales of youth in a postmodern culture. In K. Mallan & S. Pearce (Eds.), Youth cultures: texts, images, and identities (pp. ix-xix). Westport: Praeger.

Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and the viewers: cultivation theory and research. Cambridge: Oxford University Press Cambridge.

Speed, L. (2010). Loose cannons: white masculinity and the vulgar teen comedy film. The journal of popular culture, 43(4), 820-841.

Steinberg, S., & Kincheloe, J. (1998). Privileged and getting away with it: the cultural studies of white, middle-class youth.  Studies in the literary imagination, 31(1), 103-126.

Walsh, K., Fursich, E., & Jefferson, B. (2008). Beauty and the patriarchal beast: gender role portrayals in sitcoms featuring mismatched couples. Journal of popular film and television, 36(3), 123-132.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Glee: Harm in its humour?



The cast of Glee: just more stereotypes?
In any comedy, stereotypes are a staple element, and their use can encourage viewers to reconsider how they perceive others.  When used carefully, they are a powerful critique of society.  With the success of teen-musical comedy Glee, lauded for its celebration of difference, it is surprising to read Andy Denhart's news feature from earlier this year on the 'harmful simplicity' of Glee's characters, particularly in their constructed gender roles.

His point is salient.  Many of the characters, both male and female, are recognisable versions of their gender: the clueless jock, the feminine gay male, the conniving female, or the unintelligent cheerleader. Denhart argues that Glee "accepts society's definitions and reinforces them".  How this may affect young viewers' understanding of the gendered world is unknown.  At a time of life when identity formation is so crucial, television can "reinforce or cause the development of gender-typed perceptions and... stereotyped achievement aspirations and self-image" (Perloff, Brown, & Miller, as cited in Aubrey & Harrison, 2004, p. 115).  While Witt (2000, p. 322) asserts that young viewers "will imitate and repeat behaviours they see on television", more recent research suggests that what is internalised by viewers is only what matters to them (Aubrey & Harrison, 2004, p. 114).  In the case of Glee, its humour is reliant on stereotypes, but it takes a more mature viewer to appreciate the subtleties of the satire and see beyond the "ugly" stereotyping, as Denhart describes it.

Denhart's elaboration of each stereotype rings true, but there is no mention of either the characters' interactions or the issues with which they deal - not even the power of humour as social commentary.  Without these details, he glosses over important aspects relevant for a young audience, such as the acceptance of difference, minority groups, or emerging sexualities.  Indeed, similar arguments could be made about the use of stereotypes in other comedies, such as Summer Heights High, if there is an avoidance of the program's purpose.  Young people crave examples of other identities, so they can work out where they fit in.  (A recent news article in The Sydney Morning Herald even attempted to categorise the youth subcultures in Sydney for better understanding.)  Even if television shows that embrace diverse youth identities, like Glee, continue to be criticised for perpetuating stereotypes, at least there will be an awareness (and hopefully acceptance) of difference.  And surely that is important for our youth to understand.

Greg

REFERENCES

Aubrey, J., & Harrison, K. (2004). The gender-role content of children's favorite television programs and its links to their gender-related perceptions. Media Psychology, 6(2), 111-146.

Witt, S. (2000). The influence of television on children's gender role socialization. Childhood Education, 76(5), 322-324.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Katy Perry Does Sesame Street (apparently)...


Katy Perry has caused quite a stir of controversy recently, after her appearance on the iconic preschool program Sesame Street. Initially released via YouTube, the video features Katy dressed in her “dress up” clothes, and playing with Elmo whilst singing a variation of one of her latest hits.  The outfit was deemed too revealing for some parents taste. As a result of the comments received, the song segment was pulled from the TV show, demonstrating the influence of informal online comment and the convergence of television with online media. The story of the initial reaction and the video itself went into viral overdrive, as discussions about whether it was in fact questionable raged.
Catherine Lumby and Duncan Fine (2006, p. 57) define moral panic as “a hyperbolic fear that distracts people from the real issues and real solutions, by suggesting that things like drug abuse, violence and child abuse are the result of a single monolithic external cause such as television”.   Similarly Karen Brooks (2008, p. 3) suggests that “listening to the media and other reports circulating, you’d be hard pressed not believing that our kids are just one doll, song, website, TV show, film, Muppet  or outfit away from being sexually corrupted or, at worse, abused.”  This moral panic also relates to the notion of the disappearance of childhood, due to Perry and her alleged controversial attire being promoted to children at such a young age. As Media Scholar David Buckingham (2000. P.27) asserts: “...children are escaping into the wider adult world - a world of dangers and opportunities, in which the electronic media are playing an ever more important role… We must have the courage to prepare them to deal with it, to understand it, and to become active participants in their own right”. When I showed the excerpt to my own children, who are the target audience for Sesame Street, they commented that they thought it was “silly” and it was “so funny that she was singing the song from Masterchef”. They had no other association with Katy Perry, other than a family cooking show. They did not comment on her attire, whereas my husband did. It is evident from this example that such media texts can be read on different levels.
It is important that we encourage our students to take a critical perspective to their television viewing by engaging in such discussion in the classroom on these issues, particularly in the areas of technologies, in regard to media convergence of television and online media, audiences and gender representation.
Elizabeth Heck.

REFERENCES:
Brooks, K. (2008). Introduction : The Toxic 'Truth' About Our Tots, Tweens and Teens in Brooks, Karen, Consuming innocence : popular culture and our children, St Lucia, Qld Aust: UQP, pp.1-10.
Buckingham, D. (2000) After the death of childhood: Growing up in the Age of Electronic Media. United Kingdom : Polity Press.
Lumby, C. & Fine, D. (2006). TV villains: media panics. In C. Lumby & D. Fine (Eds.), Why TV is good for kids: raising 21st century children (pp. 55-96). Sydney: MacMillan.