Sociology essay on authenticity

Tofu stir-fry: the proof of inner authenticity

 

 

 

We all have that one vegetarian friend. Or, hang on, that whole vegetarian group of friends. On second thoughts, which one of my friends isn’t a vegetarian or otherwise following an in some way restrictive diet?

Perhaps I attract them; I’ve often been told that I have the ‘vegetarian (malnourished?) look’ and people are surprised when I reveal that I do, in fact, eat meat. But it isn’t mere coincidence: an increasing part of the population is becoming concerned with the wellbeing of the planet, animals and above all, themselves.

 

Let’s take butter as a quick example of our changing mindset. The origins of butter go back to when our ancestors first started domesticating animals.  In India, ghee (clarified butter) is a symbol of purity and a staple food. It has been offered to the gods in religious ceremonies for more than 3000 years.                     For thousands of years, people have prized butter for its health benefits. Suddenly, however, butter began to be labeled as the primary source of health-damaging saturated fats: the major obstacle between us and our good health. Concerned mothers of baby boomers, believing the advice of margarine manufacturers, started to replace butter with the man-made oils. An interesting side-note is that research has actually proven the contrary: organic butter, in moderation, is far healthier than its man-made counterpart.

 

We are all suddenly becoming more aware of the potentially animal, environmental and health-harming by-products of food: magazines, television programs and food-labels provide extensive information that is bombarded at us daily. A lot of money is put into the investigation of the above mentioned.

Rather than just being a result of advances in scientific research however, there seems to be something more fundamental at hand in our increased awareness: the need to rely on one’s inner authenticity.         In other words, in a world that is experienced as unstable and constantly changing, it is becoming increasingly important to be grounded in oneself. And you are what you eat, after all.

In Weber’s thinking about post modernity in Kenneth Allan’s Classical Sociological Theory, the shift from emancipatory politics to life politics is mentioned. Life politics are based on personal lifestyle choices and create a kind of grounding in oneself; a framework of trust by means of which your life can be understood as a unity against the backdrop of changing social events.

 

Understood in this way, being a vegetarian, vegan or in any other way actively expressing certain principles by restricting or being more aware of food-intake can be seen as a lifestyle that brings harmony between the inner and outer world.

Looking at it from Weber’s chief characteristic of modernization, rationalization, one could say that this interference with one’s diet is a reflection of how less spontaneous people are becoming. Gone is intuitive eating or truly enjoying our food. Our minds have become calculators of calories, fat and sugar and are making judgments (this chicken has probably suffered, spaghetti carbonara will make me fat, non-organic apple-skin is loaded with pesticides) at a terrific speed.  We no longer trust the wisdom of past generations or how our own body reacts to certain foods. Rather, the only trustworthy information out there has become the opinion of experts. We let our decisions (whether we include dairy or soy milk in our healthy diets, for instance – temporarily forgetting the differences between low-fat, semi-skimmed or full-fat) depend on the knowledge of experts (soy milk has no cholesterol and is better for the environment).

Life is being brought back to the individual. Keeping your body healthy or developing certain principles related to what goes into your body is becoming a way of retaining control over our unreliable world.

This is where the concept of individualism, discussed by Simmel, comes in. As a result of modernity, individuals become increasingly separated from the collective and more independent from social circles which had a big impact on their lives before: family, the church and the village. Ultimately, you rely on yourself, is the conviction. Anything that strengthens the notion of being a unique separate entity, such as a well- thought out set of principles, a way of dressing, eating, etc. is gladly grasped.

 

The issue at hand can also be linked to domestication and alienation, something Marx talks about. Domestication refers to the degree to which people control their biological and natural environment. The use of fire, agriculture and natural energy are tools we have used over the years to develop a greater control of the world. Globalization, capitalism, the development of transportation methods and a good infrastructure have led to a mass-production and distribution of food (control) all over the world.

We have become increasingly separated from the production process of food; most of us don’t have a clue where the food on our plate comes from. That food is becoming increasingly processed doesn’t exactly help either. An interesting reference is that to Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution. In the TV-program, he holds up several vegetables to children, asking them what they are called. Most of them aren’t even able to identify a tomato, let alone a cauliflower. A first glimpse at a small piece of fried chicken, however, unleashes the immediate cry:  ‘chicken nugget!’

According to Marx, that which makes us distinctly human is creative production. We become aware of our humanity as our nature is reflected back to us by what we produce. If we become alienated from the production process in the modern world, being a vegetarian, vegan, etc. can be a way of regaining control and knowledge. We can’t control how our food is made or where it comes from, but we can derive inner authenticity and power by the choices we make.

 

In Durkheim’s theory of modernity, he mentions how, as the division of labour increases and with it the level of structural differentiation, people become different from one another. This creates pressures for a more generalized culture and value system.

Although vegetarians and vegans often make their authenticity more pronounced, ‘staying true to yourself’, ‘following your heart’, ‘finding your calling’ and not ‘following the herd’ are important principles for everyone nowadays. Being an authentic individual is something that transcends social groups and is universally valued in modern society.

 

In short, the four dimensions of modernization (differentiation, rationalization, individualization, domestication) as discussed by Durkheim, Weber, Simmel and Marx provide an interesting backdrop against a closer look at different aspects that are tied to closely monitoring one’s diet. Just like our clothes, our likes and dislikes and our beliefs that make up parts of the complicated structure that form our identity, following a special diet can be seen as a ‘security blanket’ of some sort, providing us with the relief  that aside from the confusing outside world, there is some comfort and stability to be gained from one’s own person. Inner authenticity has become our rock in a sea of chaos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sociology essay on Taste

You are what you prefer

 

Do we define ourselves by our choices of consumption and are we, on some unconscious level, already pre-conditioned to make these choices by the environment we grew up in and the social group we ‘belong’ to?

Me and my friend Victoria’s and Astrid’s (with whom I live together) own consumer preferences provide interesting information when connected to the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. He claims that people in modern society use their cultural capital and consumerist styles to distinguish themselves from others. Cultural taste, preferences and consumption thus fulfill the social function, deliberately or not, of demarcating and legitimizing social differences.

 

Instead of dividing different parts of society only into classes, Bourdieu uses the concept of field: a social space with its own rules, schemes of domination, legitimate opinions, etc. Among the main fields in modern societies, Bourdieu cites the arts, education, law, politics and economy. Most of Bourdieu’s work concerns the role of educational and cultural factors.

It is important to realize that Astrid, Victoria and I share the same educational background and have had more or less the same upbringing with parents who share a similar education. Both my dad and Astrid’s mum teach at a university, for instance. Therefore, it would be logical to deduce that we share more or less the same consumer preferences, ones we have ‘learned to want’, as Bourdieu would say. It’s also important to bear in mind that consumer preferences are not limited to food. They include tastes in art, literature, music and many more.

 

If we apply Bourdieu to our life, whichever brand of tea we prefer might turn out to have more implications than immediately obvious. Habitus, a term used by Bourdieu; plays an important role in contributing to social reproduction as it generates and regulates practices which make up social life. Habitus refers to the lifestyle, values, expectations and dispositions of particular social groups that are acquired through the activities and experiences of everyday life. The conditions in which we live generate tastes that are in accordance with these conditions, according to Bourdieu.

On to the tea test: whilst I succumb to the delicate flavours of Twinings English breakfast, Astrid goes for the admittedly cheaper Westminster tea and Victoria for Lipton Green Tea. As I spent the first eight years of my life in England, I suppose the Twinings brand gives me a sense of nostalgia and of still being a part of English culture. Astrid, though having lived in Utrecht her whole life, shares my love of England and  the Westminster brand also has something distinctly ‘English’ about it. Victoria’s choice of green tea could be linked to her concern for good health and healthy food; green tea is prized for its antioxidant and fat-burning properties. By drinking green tea, she is part of the ‘Healthy People’ brigade.

 

I suppose the fact that we drink tea at all also says something about us, and by drinking tea we are consciously saying something about ourselves. Although tea used to be a common drink of the lower classes, heavily consumed in Ireland by the uneducated working classes, it has become something select, delicate and healthy, consumed by the educated economically stable people of today. We could be drinking coke and Fanta all day, but instead we choose tea. And let’s not forget coffee: the lifeblood of the 21^st century, as British feminist Caitlin Moran states in Moranthology. Café’s specialized in coffees have become increasingly trendy. They are the new hangout of students and people who like to cultivate a hip imago. A take-away coffee has become somewhat of a status-symbol, screaming: “I’m busy”, “I have good taste” and “I do something interesting with my life and therefore need a caffeine-fix.” It can be safely assumed that most people in coffee shops are educated, share a common appreciation of good food and art, are interested in the world around them (why else would they all be reading newspapers or typing away at something their life demands from them?) and have well-paid jobs or rich parents (why else would they be willing to fork out four euro’s for a coffee ‘special’?)

Apart from tea, me and my unit mates also share a common love of soymilk, ricecakes, cheese, spinach and pepper. We don’t eat that much meat in general, something that research has linked to educated women with a higher socioeconomic status. In eating habits there seems to be a quality-quantity and substance-form antithesis. In some (lower SES) social groups, the conditions the individuals live in generate the taste of necessity (the most filling, economic foods), as they don’t aspire to what is not available to them. For other (higher) social groups, the emphasis lies on manner of presentation and serving.

 

Books: the next area of investigation. On both my and Astrid’s shelf Harry Mulisch and Jane Austen are to be found. On Victoria’s shelf are sitting Nietzsche and Freud and on mine there is a book containing Dali’s works and more philosophical/autobiographical/fictional literature.

When it comes to film, we can all appreciate both art house and animation-movies for children, as we can distinguish in them certain ‘fine’ qualities.

 

 

The fact that we seem to share a common appreciation for the same kind of qualities in art can be directly traced back to how we acquired this taste in the first place, according to Bourdieu. In his Distinction, he discusses how the work of art is not ‘love at first sight’, but presupposes an act of cognition, a decoding operation which implies the implementation of a cognitive acquirement; a cultural code. In other words, the capacity to appreciate all the aspects of a work of art is largely dependent on your cultural background and the social circle in which you were educated and raised.

 

According to Bourdieu, art and cultural consumption are predisposed to fulfill a social function of legitimating social differences.  The denial of vulgar (natural) enjoyment implies an affirmation of the superiority of those who can enjoy the sublimated and refined. This is in contrast to the submission to necessity which seems to be characteristic of working-class people who have a pragmatic approach and go for the functional. In daily life, this is reflected in an art of living which rejects specifically aesthetic intentions.

A lot of our preferences and consumption patterns are self-evident to many people. Bourdieu refers to this experience of the natural and social as appearing obvious as doxa. In Distinction, Bourdieu states that doxa sets limits on social mobility; certain things are learned to be regarded as being inappropriate and not belonging to your social position. Therefore, doxa establishes social limits and increases a sense of one’s ‘place’ in society to which certain things do and do not correspond. We, as individuals, internalize these mental structures, which regulate our consumption.

 

Drawing upon the mental structures just mentioned, one could ask: how do we internalize them in the first place? Part of an answer to this could be the reference to symbolic violence. Bourdieu argues that symbolic violence is the imposition of categories of thought and perception upon dominated social agents, who then take this social order to be just. We eventually experience symbolic power and culture as legitimate. If this theory is taken to a more personal level, our parents can be appointed as powerful exercisers of symbolic power, steering us away from ‘inappropriate’ things. The type of education we have (or haven’t) received has a similar function with the addition of introducing us to things that will help us become who we are and establish a particular social position.

This social position is dependent on many factors and involves an interaction of economical social and cultural forms of capital. Apart from how much you earn (your economic capital) forms of prestige, attention or honour (symbolic capital) and cultural capital (competencies, skills and qualifications) come into play. I don’t earn much: I am a student and therefore my economic capital is practically non-existent. I am, however, building on my cultural capital by studying at a renowned university in Holland, offering a liberal arts and sciences program. My symbolic or social capital is also partially defined by my studying here; I will derive a fair amount of prestige  if  I complete my studies, opening many doors to me. The fact that I am native in three languages is also something that receives attention; something that adds to my ‘value’ so to speak.

 

In conclusion, the ways we set ourselves apart from different social groups in society is a complex process that we aren’t even always aware of, as we have learned to recognize certain preferences and practices as ‘natural’ and belonging to us or the kind of person we stand for in society. It is interesting to try to become aware of the hidden meanings behind something as seemingly innocent as the brand of food we choose to buy. Next time in the supermarket: take a good look inside somebody’s shopping-cart and try to deduce as much as possible from it!

 

 

Sources

 

Bourdieu, P. (1984). A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London and New York: Routledge/ Harvard University Pres

The different layers behind the veil

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems to be a recurrent theme in a lot of popular and public debates on the Islam to illustrate its backwardness by referring to the role of women in this religion. The topics of Veiling and the wearing of headscarves never go by unnoticed. It is interesting to take a look at why the focus is so often on the position of women.

Women seem an easy target in the debate on the Islam; in their invisibility, they become visible to us as a symbol of a backwardness that is not present in our own culture. Criticizing Islamic gender codes seems to be a way for us to generate a moral justification for the idea that Islamic culture must change. However, in doing this, it is easy to fall into a few traps. First of all, it is important to bear in mind that “to gain an understanding of the problems we need to separate out imposed dress-code regulations, such as those imposed by the Iranian and Saudi governments, from elected ones such as the choice to wear the hijab in the West” (Afshar, H., 2008) as is stated in the article ‘Can I see your hair? Choice, agency and attitudes: the dilemma of faith and feminism for Muslim women who cover’, written by Haleh Afshar. For women living in societies where the imposition comes from the government, one could argue that it is true that they don’t have a choice. However, the situation both in these countries and in the West is more complex.

A first trap is to assume that, just because women in our own culture don’t veil and could be called more ‘free’ in this sense, the veil or headscarf is always an imposition on women. In doing this, we are failing to consider the possibility that women might choose to wear a veil, not only as an expression of faith, but also as a sign of belonging to a particular culture and community. We seem to forget that the simple act of wearing clothes in the West is also a way of conforming to culture, yet nobody seems to claim that this is ‘restraining’ us. In the above mentioned article, there is an extract from Fareena Alam (editor of Europe’s leading Muslim magazine Q-news), which explores other reasons why a woman might choose to wear a headscarf: “Modesty is only one of many reasons why a woman wears a scarf. It can be a very political choice too. I began wearing it at the age of 21, against the wishes of my family, while serving as president of the United Nations Students’ Association at university. I wanted to assert my identity and counter common stereotypes about Muslim women. A woman who wears a hijab can be active and engaged, educated and professional. . . . Does this democratic society have any room for a British-Muslim woman like me who chooses to wear the hijab on my own terms” (Afshar, H., 2008)?

For many Muslim feminists, the reason why it is so important to question veiling is because is represents a freedom of choice, which is supposedly absent for Islamic women.  In the article, however, Afshar mentions that “if feminism is about anything it is about celebrating difference and respecting the choices that women make” (Afshar, H., 2008),  something many people are failing to consider.

 

Another trap is that by choosing to view Muslim women as oppressed and submissive, we are constructing an image of the Other, which is much the same as the superficial belief people used to have in the  existence of  the Orient; supposedly a place full of harems of sensuous women doing belly-dances. As Afshar points out, “the new climate of Islamophobia has otherized Muslims in general and Muslim women in particular in a way that exemplifies aspects of what Edward Said termed Orientalism” (Afshar, H., 2008). Based on limited experiences in the East, Said states, a distorted image of the Orient has been constructed by  Western scholars, which presented the Orient as “essentially ancient, exotic and absurd, the land of despotsand mystics, populated by a backward population of supine men and subordinated and silent women”  (Afshar, H., 2008) . Because Orientalism is largely a fictional creation, it hinders us from seeing things objectively and, much like Islamophobia, feeds the existence of stereotypes.

If one becomes aware of the fact that many Muslim women are actively engaged in the interpretation of the Koran and want to define their rights for themselves within the context of their religion, it is difficult to call them submissive or oppressed. It is sad that there has been a ‘demonization’ of the headscarf across Europe, as is mentioned in the article. The result is that many women who have always worn a head scarf can no longer function or feel at accepted in the societies where they have lived for a considerable time.

 

In conclusion, one can say that there is a difference between veiling that is imposed by government and the freedom of choice to veil. There is also a possibility that the women who are forced to veil by the state, still view this as an individual decision and that for Muslim women in the West, the act is in a sense forced by the community they grow up in. However, there is no question about the fact that for many women the choice is distinctly personal and a way of accentuating their identity and choosing to be part of a certain community with a particular belief system. In short, Muslim women, however much fun we may make of them (such as in the Dutch Burka Babes cartoons by Peter de Wit) often experience their situation differently than we would often think. Therefore, without dismissing acts we feel are damaging to people as part of a culture only ‘they’ can understand, this is important to bear in mind.

 

 

Book review (final part of Occidentalism portfolio)

Book review Occidentalism, by Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit

 

It’s easy to become blind all the particularities of our surroundings and culture. For all those wishing to get out of this rut, however, Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit’s book Occidentalism (2004) is an excellent antidote. With the term ´Occidentalism´ the writers hope to encapsulate “the dehumanizing picture of the West painted by its enemies.”

It is strangely refreshing to see oneself through the eyes of another. It seems that we are all too used to pointing out the differences and wrongdoings in another, rather than in ourselves. Occidentalism, however, tries to target essential parts of Western culture, such as the Occidental city, the mercantile attitude of the West and Western love of comfort and rationality. However oblivious we may be to them in our everyday lives, these things are all too obvious to the Other.

 

Cultural differences have always been present and the identification of the ´otherness´ of others seems to be a fundamental human need. Skin-tone, eye-shape, clothing, religion, language and other forms of expression are among the things that we have picked up on for centuries in order to form a picture of the other against which we could recognize ourselves as different. There is no getting around this tendency and we become acquainted with it from a young age, for instance by reading stories or watching films that revolve around the fight of ´good´ against ´evil.´

Occidentalism helps the reader to enhance his cultural awareness, something which allows one to see the positive and negative aspects of cultural differences. Not only is this book a useful tool for trying to understand ourselves (to understand the other, you have to know yourself and vice versa), it is also relevant when delving into the deeper motives of movements such as Al Qaeda. What it clearly shows is that suicide bombers and holy warriors aren’t new phenomena; their ideas are rooted in a long history of anti-Western thought.

 

When living at the West, it’s easy to get sucked into a daze. There are endless things to focus on: billboards advertising the latest female deodorant or action movie, stores selling clothes catering to every possible human expression of style, restaurants in different price categories, trendy café’s, supermarkets, casino’s and the list goes on. It’s easy to think that life is uncomplicated in the West. There will always be a something around to satisfy our needs and we will always be looked after in exchange for money; after all, “everything and everyone is for sale.”

The visual imagery just constructed brings to mind the big, Western city. Cities, more than countries, seem to be the units that portray the essence of modern life. Big cities, however, are also one of the clearest examples of Western capitalism, consumerism and supposed immorality, which non-Western societies are especially sensitive towards. Pop artist Andy Warhol already highlighted the consumerist tinge of our society by depicting Coca Cola bottles and cans of Campbell´s soup as art, which reflected and defined the world he lived in. His work was hugely popular in the West and its message open to many interpretations. As it lacked a heavily moralizing message, it didn’t turn many people against the workings of their own society (although many people in the West don’t feel positive about materialsm and mass-production).

To Occidentalists, however, Western cities are clearly opposed to everything that is profound, authentic and spiritual. In addition to this, mass consumption also means mass participation in politics, which can be seen as dangerous. It is striking that materialism also seems to be more than present in the East. Countries with a fast growing middle-class, such as China, are a good example of this. And just because a woman is dressed in a burqa, doesn´t mean she doesn´t have a fashion sense or never shops at (Western inspired) malls either. It is puzzling but interesting to see how countries in the East marry ‘Oriental’ traditions with practices associated with a Western lifestyle.

In Occidentalism it is mentioned that soullessness is seen as a consequence of the metropolitan hubris and that “religious men have been exercised since ancient times by the dissipation of spirituality in the pursuit of wealth.” The attack on the Twin Towers, a symbol of global capitalism, therefore represented everything hateful to the holy warrior about the greatest modern City of Man, according to the writers.

It is easy, as a Westerner, to take for granted the Western mindset. The West viewed through Occidentalist eyes is overly rational and focused on personal gain. Non-rational sources of knowledge, such as religion, standing in contrast to science, are deemed superstitious.  What the shallow Western mind lacks, according to Occidentalists is intuition, spirituality and an understanding of human suffering.

Indeed, it seems like pain or suffering is something that we, in the West are trying to run away from as fast as possible. Suffering should be replaced by a constant state of happiness; something which seems to have become our primary goals in life.  Instead of accepting suffering as an essential part of human life, we seem intent on banishing it with the help of therapy or distractions in the form of entertainment, drugs or comforting food and drink (alcohol, fast food,). Many magazines and books are devoted to the theme of happiness. The big question is: what can I do to make myself happy? Most often, the answer lies in either buying something or tricking your mind into not acknowledging your unhappiness anymore. 

Throughout the book, something that seems to come back is the act of ‘settling’ for comfort and for the reasonable, which is perceived to be a typically Western thing to do.  Mediocrity, the fear of being original or of undertaking heroic acts, which supposedly help a nation progress, are things that seem to pervade Western society according to Occidentalists. The end result is leading an uninspiring, sheltered life. However, one could be say that although people in the West do tend to choose for comfort and leading a sheltered life, the West collectively is a potent force.

In the book it is mentioned how Kireyevsky “interpreted Aristotle’s golden rule as a rule for avoiding extremes and seeking the average, which is another name for mediocrity.” (p. 92) This stands in contrast to Islamic suicide bombers’ will to die for something greater than themselves, something which gives their lives meaning. As is stated in Occidentalism, “Self-sacrifice for a higher cause, for an ideal world, cleansed of human greed and injustice, is the one way for the average man to feel heroic. Better to die gloriously for an ideal than to live in Komfortismus. Choosing to die a violent death becomes a heroic act of human will.”

In short, reading Occidentalism is definitely a thing I would recommend. It’s a bit like being a tourist in your own city: you re-discover things that you were familiar with all along.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Column (part of Orientalism portfolio)

The Muslim Experience

Eugenia Melissen Ferrer

El Pais: English version

 

Reflecting on Edward Said’s Thoughts about America, which stresses the importance of not living in a black and white world of good and evil, it might be interesting to take a closer look at what I’m going to call ‘the Muslim experience’: what it is like to get around in the world as a Muslim.

A sad fact remains that many Muslims living in the West are either consciously or subconsciously singled out as hostile and potentially dangerous. Said mentions an example of discriminatory behavior against Arabs at airports, in which they are made to stand aside for “special attention” during security checks. Not so long ago, I  heard a Muslim man give an account of how he feels he is being observed as ‘the terrorist’ whenever he steps on a plane; people around him become visibly uncomfortable. Why? Perhaps because of the fact that he is an Arab, has a beard and looks like a distant relative of Bin Laden. It seems that we have added ‘the terrorist look’ to our notions of possible looks (gothic, casual, etc) and are all too ready recognize it when we see it.

Of course, this attitude makes it easy for Arabs to develop a wall of (sometimes aggressive) defense around themselves and to be constantly on their guard. This state of constant vigilance in turn reinforces another’s suspicion and it becomes a vicious cycle.

Although I hate generalizing, there are a few things I have observed in Muslims so far; things I believe are a result of the image we are projecting onto them and the way we behave towards them.

One of these things is that they take their religion very, very seriously. It is interesting to observe that there are surprisingly few Muslim comedians and that very few jokes are made about religious practices or experiences of Muslims in daily life.  If jokes are made about them by another, most Muslims almost immediately feel personally attacked. In contrast, making fun of oneself isn’t impossible to rhyme with being a Christian or a Jew. On the contrary, there is a long tradition of self-depreciating Jewish humour, much of which is religious humour and the mocking of negative stereotypes. Although this seriousness could also be linked to the nature of the Islam and its restrictions on expressive art forms such as music, dance, theatre and the visual arts (most of which are aimed at removing the possibility of idol worship), one could argue that it also rooted in feelings of defensiveness (if they don’t defend their heavily criticized religion, who will?).

Another thing is the issue of integration, which is always present in countries where a Muslim population is mixed with that of the autochthonous. The problem is that they never really do mix that much. Muslims live in their own neighborhoods and go to their own supermarkets and bakeries and to their nearby mosques and schools. It seems that this routine is a way of life for many Muslims, but one that is very confusing to second-generation immigrants, who struggle to belong and never fully achieve this as they are caught between two worlds.  This is something that adds to the dissatisfaction, anxiety and anger that often leads to ‘disruptive behaviour’ among these youths, separating the two worlds even more. However, this separation of worlds probably also has a lot to do with our own attitude towards the Muslim community in the first place, which, although tolerant, is far from accepting or welcoming.

It seems that, in order to make the Muslim experience more pleasurable, some work is required on the part of both parties. The Muslim communities would do well in not trying to otherize us as much they do. As Said mentions in his (slightly outdated) interview, it is important for people to understand that “America is not a monolith for the use of George Bush and Dick Cheney, but in fact contains many voices and currents of opinion which this government is trying to silence or make irrelevant.”

We, on the other hand must do the same and also continue to work hard to stop thinking that the atrocities of 11 September entitle us to preach at others. As Said says about this preaching,  “while it pretends to the elucidation of principles and the declaration of values, it is in fact exactly the opposite, an exercise in not knowing, in blinding readers with a patriotic rhetoric that encourages ignorance as it overrides real politics, real history, and real moral issues.”

 

 

Part of Orientalism portfolio (sociology summer course at uni)

Disneyentalism

 

Ever since the release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937, it seems like there is no childhood without Disney. Because Disney mainly targets children in their most formative years, it probably influences the shaping of their values and understanding of the world more than we like to admit. The power and capacity Disney has to shape worlds and idea’s is an interesting topic for further investigation in relation to the concept of Orientalism, which supposedly shapes one’s perceptions of the stranger or the Other. In order to examine this further, this essay attempts to explore examples of Orientalism in three Disney films: The Jungle Book, Aladdin and Mulan.

 

 

First of all, a quick definition of Orientalism is in order. Bearing in mind Edward Said’s book Orientalism (1978), one could say that it is a created body of knowledge and practice about what the Orient, in essence, is. Although this is partly based on empirical knowledge, most of it is a product of the imagination; a tool with which European culture was able to both control and produce the Orient on many levels during the post-Enlightenment period. Orientalism is nothing without stereotypes, which are needed to produce a convincing picture of the Other. This not only helps us to distance ourselves from him, but also to define ourselves.

 

 

The Jungle Book, originally written by Rudyard Kipling, gives a good example of the creativity that is an essential feature of Orientalism. Both the book and film show the need of imperial nations, in this case the English, to create their own false accounts of the Orient; a way of possessing the culture of their colonized subjects. For imperial nations, the degradation of native cultures was a way of making themselves look superior and justifying the occupation of their colonies.

Although the film is full of carefully constructed visual imagery suggestive of an Indian space (the jungle, elephants, monkeys, tigers, tropical fruit, a girl carrying a water jug on her head), “the images and constructions of nation produced stem from an understanding of Englishness as a site of colonial authority” (Nyman, J., 2001) as Jopi Nyman mentions in his essay on Kipling’s book. He states that “different racial and national Others are constructed to promote a particular version of Englishness, a process that in the case of Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is embodied in its imagining of an animal Other that is harnessed to serve the Empire and its British rulers” (Nyman, J., 2001). Nyman speaks of how representing the native and colonized people as animals serves the purpose of distancing readers from their humanity. This seems to work: a picture is sketched of mostly untrustworthy savages, who would seemingly benefit from order and therefore some sort of domination. The animals themselves interestingly seem to be divided into two camps. On the one hand, Baloo, Bagheera and the wolves are responsible (they take care of Mowgli) and respect the natural boundaries between man and beasts; they do their best to hide away in the jungle and not interfere with the world of men. The hypnotizing snake Kaa, the evil tiger Shere Kahn and the ‘mad’ monkey who sings he wants to be like a man, however, don’t respect these boundaries and possibly symbolize a lack of respect for colonial rule.

Although Mowgli has the appearance of a native boy, he is superior to the animals. Interestingly enough, he has an American accent, which seems to be a prerequisite for a movie hero to be embraced by a Disney audience. Perhaps Mowgli has been Disney-fied, in order to fit the mould of a heroic (and therefore Western) main character? In the film, his superiority becomes especially clear when he makes fire in order to get rid of Shere Kahn. An interesting detail is that the fight between man and tiger also seems to be laden with symbolism. In Nyman’s article it is mentioned that “the emphasis on the tiger hunt in Anglo-Indian fiction reflects British-Indian encounters and the tiger is some enduring spirit of India that the British felt they had failed to subjugate.”

The belief that things get out of hand in a society without a set of strictly Western norms and regulations is represented by a group of monkeys Mowgli, Bagheera and Baloo encounter one day. They are portrayed as a mad group without language, who sing, dance and like to poke fun at everything. Their ‘kingdom’ has no specific culture and is completely out of control. Nyman mentions that “Theirs is a colonial psyche, a maddening, or already maddened, form of identity that threatens the stability of colonial rule” (Nyman, J., 2001). This possibly reflects the colonial fear of becoming too much like the other and ‘losing oneself.’

A final interesting aspect of the film to look at is the accent the different animals speak with. Although some accents are American, it is noticeable that many animals also speak with a British accent; perhaps to emphasize the British stamp that has been placed on India. A curious detail is that the most dangerous and therefore supposedly the most threatening animal (to colonial rule) Shere Kahn has the haughtiest, most upper-class English accent of them all.

 

 

 

Aladdin is also a film that reflects Western (American) interests in the East. It is full of stereotypes, many of which seem to have been illogically fused to create a convincing ‘Disney-picture’ of the Orient. Examples are:  revealingly dressed women with a veiled face, belly-dancers, camels, elephants, Bengal tigers, flying carpets, cobras, deserts, turbans, pyramids, classical ruins, Allah, the genie and the Chinese New Year. Rather than accuracy, the correct identification of the audience with the exotic and ‘the Orient’, whatever that may be, seems to be considered most important. This adds a fictional layer to the already fictional story told in the film.

 Early on in the article Saving Other Women from Other Men, the writer Erin Addison mentions that “to acknowledge rationality and moral complexity in the colonial subject is to complicate those sexual, cultural, and market places in the same way ours are complicated. Such an acknowledgement would also sidle us up so close to the subject that we would have at least have to consider drawing analogies between ourselves and the colonized” (Addison, E., 1993). There seems to be no risk of identifying too much with the Other in Aladdin, as most characters (except for Americanized Aladdin and Jasmine), are heavily caricaturized. For one thing, abundant hair is a defining feature of all the men (including the Sultan, Jafar and the Genie. The Genie has a delicately formed curly black beard and a high pony-tail and both Jafar and the Sultan have a lot of facial hair. Jafar also has an exaggeratedly formed, distinctly non-Western nose and a raw temper. The rest of the men depicted (salesmen or guards) are dirty, aggressive, brutal, toothless, half-clad or have murderous intentions. Images of this merry lot are what is most likely going to root itself in the viewers (unconscious) perception of Arab Islam.

In the essay it is mentioned that “Aladdin’s missionary project replaces Islamic Law, social codes,and local aristocracy with American individualism, romance, and the aristocracy of wealth” (Addison, E., 1993). One can observe this in Jasmine, who wants to escape tradition and follow her own path in life. She wants to be free to have friends, go where she wants, wear whatever she wants to wear and marry whomever she wants. Addison interestingly points out that “it reveals what Americans imagine Arab Muslim women cannot do, but wish to” (Addison, E., 1993). Jasmine’s portrayal as a woman who wants to be freed from her current situation could also be interpreted as an American critique of Hijab and Islamic marriage systems (arranged marriages, polygamy, etc). However, the presented alternative is romance, which merely allows Jasmine to be married in the accepted American way. It does not present her with more freedom as a woman or to undertake different activities. “The reason Jasmine is so important to Aladdin’s ideology, Addison mentions, is that “we as a culture continue to criticize Islamic gender codes as a means of generating moral justification for changing Islamic culture” (Addison, E., 1993). This means we think we have the right to ‘put our foot in’ and intervene in order to ‘save’ women from another culture from themselves. By doing this, we are assuming that our values are universal and that it would be silly for the Other, who is supposedly ‘suffering’ to not adopt them to their benefit.

 

 

 

The last Disney film that will be discussed in this essay is Mulan. The Mulan story is based on a popular ballad written during the NorthernWei Dynasty (386–534 AD). It tells the story of the legendary 14-year-old girl Mulan who, hiding her gender, volunteers to join the army in her father’s place. Mulan miraculously survives the 10-year war against the invaders and fights well, but declines the emperor’s offer of a high appointment in order to return home to her parents. In an article which discusses globalization and hybridization in cultural products, the writers Georgette Wang and Emilie Yueh-yu Yeh mention that the original story “exemplifies both filial piety and patriotism” (Wang, G., Yueh-Yu Yeh., 2005). It seems that the Disney version has made a few necessary changes, true to the Disney brand. First of all, this is observable in Disney’s depiction of the role of women. As is stated in the essay, “the Chinese story characterizes Mulan as a quiet and thoughtful girl in the domestic sphere, who attends to duties such as weaving, the Disney Mulan is sprightly,tomboyish and unfit to be an ideal wife” (Wang, G., Yueh-Yu Yeh., 2005).

As is also the case in Aladdin and The Jungle Book, the visual imagery of the film is an obvious attempt of Disney to create a façade of ‘otherness’ for the spectator (pagoda’s, willow trees, oriental flowers), as is the oriental music accompanying it. An interesting detail pointed out in the article is that the film also seems to glorify “the multiplicity of culture, ethnicity, nation, gender and race” (Wang, G., Yueh-Yu Yeh., 2005). Examples are brought forward of the voices who dub the characters, such as African American Eddie Murphy, Chinese American Ming-na Wen, and a number of Japanese American, Korean American and Jewish actors in the

supporting roles.

Individualism and authenticity seem to be highly praised throughout the film. Rather than letting your social role define you, the film shows one that it is more important to ‘Be True to Your Heart’, like the song in the film implies. Bearing this in mind one can agree with what the writers observe: “the story, although set in ancient China, is resolutely modern and American” (Wang, G., Yueh-Yu Yeh., 2005). China’s in Western eyes not so pleasant past is represented by the secondary characters of the matchmaker, who tries to keep traditional femininity in check and the prime minister, who only cares about rules. The matchmaker is obese and an exaggeratedly rigid character. The prime minister, on the other hand, is characterized as a tiny, unfit meddler. As is stated in the essay, “Together, they encapsulate the old outmoded traditions and practices of feudal China and everything that the modern Disney Mulan is up against” (Wang, G., Yueh-Yu Yeh., 2005). Loyalty, responsibility of sons and daughters (Confucian values) and ideal femininity are portrayed as ancient ideologies, which must be replaced by gender equality and a broader notion of femininity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

In conclusion, one can say that there seems to be a trend in Disney movies portraying ‘distant’ or ‘unknown’ worlds. Keeping in line with Edward Said’s notion of Orientalism, the Other is otherized as much as possible through caricaturized characters and (incoherent) stereotypical images, which are grouped together in order to lend the film an exotic character. At the same time, Disney seems to press its stamp on films it by providing an image of how things could change for the better if foreign practices were changed and adjusted according to Western values.

 

 

In the case of The Jungle Book, most of the ‘otherizing’ has already been done by Rudyard Kipling against the background of British colonial rule. However, as has been discussed before, Disney doesn’t miss a chance to capture a story emphasizing the differences of the Other.

The Disney films discussed all offer commentary or warnings on the workings of the others’ society and weave in views of the beneficial alternative, which is in alignment with Western norms and values. The way in which this commentary is woven in, is done on so many levels that, as a whole, it is easy to become immune to it as a spectator. After all, it is probably not on the first viewing of Aladdin that the view is likely to understand Jasmine’s feisty attitude as a critique of the role of women is Islamic societies, or pay attention to the fact that Mowgli has an American accent. However, after scratching the surface, the Western simultaneous opinion and creation of the other (and of themselves, in that process), which leaks through the productions of Disney, is always there. In this way, Disney and Orientalism aren’t that far from one another.

 

 

 

Sources

Erin Addison, ‘Saving Other Women from Other Men: Disney's Aladdin’, Camera Obscura, 31 (1993), p 5–25.

Jopi Nyman, ‘Re-Reading Rudyard Kipling’s ‘English’ Heroism: Narrating Nation in The Jungle Book, Orbis Litterarum, 56 (2001), p 205-220

Georgette Wang and Emilie Yueh-Yu Yeh, ‘Globalization and hybridization in cultural products: The cases of Mulan and Crouching, Tiger Hidden Dragon’ , International Journal of Cultural Studies, 175 (2005), p 176-193

 

 

 

Educated girls get cellulite

Educated girls tie their hair back in glossy ponytails. They drink tea and eat tofu. They have older boyfriends and read French literature. They are into Asian culture and frozen yoghurt. And they have cellulite.

Let’s face it, a large part of education revolves around sitting on your bum all day long. I’m not saying cellulite is the price every girl has to pay for her education. There are many opportunities to get moving and do your circulation a favour. However, for some, the damage definitely seems to be done.

Of course, all sorts of factors come into play before someone gets cellulite. Emotional drama, stress, smoking and food habits all play a role. But studying seems to deliver the final blow. BAM! Gotcha! And it’s always the innocent, goody-goodies who like staying in, who end up getting the worst of it.

Perhaps I should be slightly more specific and narrow down the kind of female student I’m talking about. She’s the one who is willing to sacrifice a lot for her studies or her social life. The kind who pulls all-nighters and uses caffeine and sugar to sustain her. She’s might be mentally unstable or going through a rough period in her life.  She might be filling up on alcohol and getting very little sleep. Of course, you could argue that what I’m sketching here is the portrait of a typical female student…

 In any case, she’s not really taking care of herself and she doesn’t seem to care just yet.

How does some of this relate to a university education? Well, studying is fun, but after a few hours, you need some distraction. Said distraction easily comes in the form of a twix bar or a sticky chocolate brownie. After all, chocolate is a girl’s best friend (How could Marylin be so wrong?). Soon, sitting and eating become your two main activities, which makes you more likely to rely on sugar highs. After soothing whatever it was that was screaming for pleasure (your sexual frustration, boredom, fatigue or moodiness), you feel fit to continue.

It’s an interesting paradox: highly intelligent women who stand up for themselves, who guiltily indulge in their childish tastes (for hot chocolate with marshmallows). Will these students grow up to be the kind of women who own a massive sterile kitchen stocked with organic produce only? Who knows?

Final note: girls, I criticize you not. Life is for living, not for pointless preservation. However, a bit of care and moderation can’t hurt.