If there is one thing thinking about rhetorical bodies does, is that it challenges the Classical notion of intellectual value, where this value is placed, and forces Westerners to reconstruct a thought pattern that has been educationally instilled since youth. It is, undoubtedly, a challenging yet refreshing process.
Jay Dolmage’s article “Metis, Metis, Mestiza, Medusa: Rhetorical Bodies across Rhetorical Traditions” challenges this sort of “false dichotomy” between mind and body that is emphasized in the cannon of Aristotle and Plato. Interestingly enough, Domage believes we have chosen to place a higher degree of value on the intellectual mind over the supposed “animalistic body.” He writes, “A more complex view of Greek history reveals that for these philosophers the obsession with the mind does not always fully divert attention from the body” (2). And, if this is the case, Western philosophical history has done a disservice to us by neglecting important rhetorical purposes bodies can have. It seems that our Classical philosophers, while not fully diverting attention from the body, were often analyzing the body in a negative context. All of us are both mind and body, which should be viewed as complimentary. It seems that the body can even teach us about ourselves in ways the mind cannot.
How can we rebel against viewing the mind and body as possessing binary opposition? Domage asserts that, by responding repressively, “rhetoric can reclaim the body” (5). A great example of how rhetoric can reclaim the body lies in his analysis of Hephaestus, the Greek god of fire and metallurgy. Often depicted as having a physical disability, modern thinkers may interpret this as “loss,” however, according to Domage, “disability, throughout history, has not always represented loss, punishment, perversion, and alienation, but instead often been seen as an embodied reality, a physical eventuality, even a desirable human variation”(7). And, if this is the case, viewing disability as having a negative connotation is a form of socialization, and a way we project a personification of the word “norm” in our heads onto reality.
After reading Domage’s piece, one topic, in particular, that stuck was his account of the Goddess Metis, and how she was viewed as having cunning intellect (metis). She was once Zeus’ wife, as well; however, he ingested her because “Metis’s wisdom and ingenuity were a threat to his sovereign power, a power that he attained only with her aid” (9). Her actual physical body was consumed, and is reflective of how women were often viewed as either seductively cunning or sexually seductive -- both depicting the body negatively. Domage’s argument asserts this claim by stating “it is no coincidence that the bodies of a powerful woman and a man with a disability have been obscured” (11). Is there a way for us to break this false hierarchical pattern of thought?
It seems that the only way we can break our socialization of what we would consider “norm” is through educating ourselves on multiple perspectives of thinking. Different cultures, genders, and experiences can teach us this.
This week, we read a chapter from Page duBois’ Out of Athens called “The Tattoos of Epimenides”, Jay Dolmage’s article “Metis, Mêtis, Mestiza, Medusa: Rhetorical Bodies Across Rhetorical Traditions” and Phebe Shih Chao’s piece called “Tattoo and Piercing: Reflections on Mortification”.
The duBois chapter explores abnormal and unnatural figures in history and myths and how they evoke both fascination and fear. Depending on the context, we see how people and characters that do not fit the norm can either be considered to have extraordinary powers or to be mere objects that serve to establish by contrast what it is to be normal (58). One part of this chapter that I especially liked was when duBois paraphrases Winkler to say “Nature means convention, that is, culture” (60). It is “unnatural” when the women in the story assist the men, but their actions are only unnatural in the sense that they are unexpected based on cultural norms. Many behaviors we call “unnatural” and would condemn are only so in that interpretation of the term. I appreciated how duBois includes the discussion of the connotations of “magic” in a Western context which often “disavows its own magical aspects” for the same reasons I love “Body Ritual among the Nacirema”—it compels us to see our own culture from the perspective on an outsider and realize that what we take for granted to be normal is just as weird from a distance as any other culture (61). Although I am not sure precisely what this phrase means, even after attempting a cursory search online, I kept rereading and visualizing the quote from Robert Parker that Epimenides was “wrapped in swathes of the fabulous” (63). I find that description quite appealing. If I were the type to do this, I would have to post something along the lines of #wrappedinswathesofthefabulous #goals. Back to business, the idea of separating Epimenides’ tattooed skin from his body brought three connections to mind. First, the display component recalled last week’s discussion of how Sarah Baartman’s body was dismembered and kept on display, more in alignment with the negative side of the perception of another person as abnormal than the reverent side, as perhaps was the case with Epimenides’ skin. I also thought about the African Art History course I took again and how some Muslim men write verses on wooden boards and then drink the ink when they are through. It is not the same as a tattoo in that it leaves no lasting mark on the surface of the body, but it is a similarly interesting way of connecting the body to magic. Finally, I thought about the time I tried to read Postmortem, the first Kay Scarpetta novel by Patricia Cornwell, and realized I was meant to be a cultural anthropologist within pages of starting because the protagonist, a forensic examiner, discusses at length a process for preserving the tattoos of the deceased, which made me very queasy.
Dolmage’s article argues that rhetoric is not as disembodied as some scholars have claimed. I enjoyed the word choice in the abstract when it says he “exhumes an embodied history of rhetoric” and also in his goal “to show how we might choreograph new rhetorical possibilities” (2). He totally lost me in the part about Plato and all the different groups of his followers, but I was pleased when I finally understood the relationships between Metis, Zeus, Athena and Medusa, which had never been clear to me. It was striking to read how these myths “clearly describe male fears, fears that lead to violence against Medusa. Perhaps the central narrative motor for all of these myths is the effort to defend or justify both the fear of and the violence toward women” (15). I can definitely see how his argument ties in with Gloria Anzaldúa’s, especially the connection to her point about the benefits of malleability and the different forms of power. I was not previously very familiar with Cixous, but I love the paraphrase of her claim that Medusa’s monstrosity and beauty come from the same place and its implications for “those would reverse this legacy” of patriarchy (17).
I have not left myself much space to discuss Phebe Shih Chao’s piece, which is probably just as well because I was not a fan. I read a monograph of tattoo culture in Visual Anthropology at UMass Amherst, and I do see what she is saying about the purposes tattoos historically served in various cultures and in American subcultures as markers of different kinds of identities and affiliations. However, in her obsession with drawing on Burke’s work, which I can see may have been an interesting exercise, she makes some seriously flawed assumptions about the reasons people choose to get tattoos, motivations behind placement and concealment, etc. Her cl
Tattoo and Piercing, interesting matter as well as controversial ones according to different society and era as Chao tries to examine in the paper. Tattoo and piercing both aim to pierce the skin, and also decoration or transformation the body. Chao’s rhetorical analyzes show us that this decoration are symbolic acts of transformation through which individual try to achieve redemption. He sees mortification, victimage as two kinds of this redemptive identification Chao explores Burke thought in an attempt to explain why certain individuals wear tattoos and piercing. Chao gives the idea that tattoo symbolizes the individual identity; tattoo and piercing owner renounce or deny their society and culture norm in a way they have their self-control. It is important to point out that Chao argues that people wear tattoo or piercing for individual purpose. In the text, we can see that individual who wear tattoo may face ‘stereotypes that had already been established: rebel/outlaw/counterestablishmentarian’. The way tattoo as well as piercing are seeing in society depends on the impact it has on the viewer. The tattoo on the body of Epimenides is rhetorical and the text tries to reveal us that the practice of tattoo has been with us for many centuries. As the author argues “this tattooing makes the free Epimenides abnormal in relation to other free men, since tattoos in antiquity were later usually associated with barbarians and slaves’. I was thinking that the prejudice and stereotype against tattoo it is something related to modern society, but I this passage I noticed that it is old and it was associated to slaves and barbarians. The fact of wear tattoo during Epimenides period makes the individual been seeing as someone from the lower class. I enjoyed the Rhetorical bodies across Rhetorical since it deals with Greek myths and I am fascinated with it. The author argues that extraordinary bodies should be the bodies of rhetoric. The text tell us the stories of of Goddes Metis, Medusa and Mestiza, and those symbolic extraordinary bodies are rhetorical.
James Blandino, Cultural Rhetoric- Week #7
In thinking about bodies as rhetorical, I keep coming back to the same sticking point. If we are to consider that the body carries knowledge, can inform, persuade, and make, then we must dissolve the line between the body and the mind. The classical notion that the body is a husk or vessel to hold the soul and/or mind has been deeply ingrained over centuries. Jay Dolmage writes that, “we have chosen to focus on classical denials of the body, and we have erected a rhetorical tradition that also valorizes the split between the mental and the physical. It can also be argued that the body we invoke when we think of antiquity is idealized and made ‘normal’.” This normalizing of the ancient body leads to prejudice against those with what I will call extraordinary bodies, women and the disabled.
A woman’s body is certainly more extraordinary than a man’s is. The ability to carry, birth and nurse a child connects a woman’s body more closely to nature than a man’s. The mysteries that lie in the female body and its connection to the lunar cycles is frightening to men. Aristotle sees this as disabling; that a woman’s soul is somehow controlled by her body rather than the other way around. Dolmage continues this thought, “The crippled or feminized body is therefore incapable of philosophical thought and is also blamed for corporeal distractions . . . there is a view that if the body disables thought, the feminine body is particularly disabling or disabled.” In considering certain bodies to be disabling, we open the door for discrimination and prejudice.
The goddess Metis, Zeus’s first wife, married him directly after defeating the Titans, for which she was primarily responsible. It was her knowledge of magic that defeated the supersized Titans and transferred power to the Olympian Gods. Her supreme power, according to Domage, “was seen as dangerous, as Other, an as eminently powerful. Metis has always been associated with trickery- those with metis can see the world slightly differently, can find opportunity to turn the tables on those . . . with greater brute strength”. Of course, poor Metis had to be devoured by Zeus. A disabled, mutilated body, possessing such magic, cunning, and power could not be left to her own devices. Zeus saw her as a threat. Once her body was consumed, her wit and cunning appropriated into an acceptable male bodily form in Zeus, her intelligence and cleverness was allowed room within the rhetoric. Metis continues to council Zeus from inside his head. Domage declares that, “Metis was wrested from the feminine, its lineage became unofficial, and its uses were coopted and controlled by Zeus.”
Why does the feminine form threaten us? I have a friend who often declares, “I hate female lead vocalists.”, when we are talking about singers. This statement closes the door to tons and tons of amazing music for him, but it also reveals something about the fear of a woman with intelligence, wit, and control over a crowd. I have heard this kind of sentiment about female lead singers from many men. There is something threatening to the “normal” order of things when we see Lady Gaga, Madonna, Janice Joplin and even more so Courtney Love, Fiona Apple, or Ani DiFranco on stage. I wonder if these women ghost wrote songs for U2 or The Police, would more men like them? This is parallel to the Metis myth. Her wisdom and cunning were useful and acceptable when presented by a male body, a normal body.
The artisan, whose body often tells the tale of their labors, is considered to be other, certainly not gentile. The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, the basket weaver, the violin player, the painter, the potter, the farmer, and the mason are all people whose work is bodily. In a culture that values the mind over the body, where does the artisan fit in? The artisan is always seen as a bit magic by the upper class. Silas Marner, by George Eliot, is a perfect example of this phenomenon. The weaver lives on the edge of town and his body is bent and crippled from leaning over the loom. He is frail and feminine. He is an outcast, seen as a ghost or perhaps a fairy, but everyone in town needs his skill and pays top dollar.
The author of “Metis, Metis, Mestiza, Medusa: Rhetorical Bodies Across Rhetorical Traditions”, Jay Dolmage, starts explaining that throughout a great deal of time, as he says “Plato to Descartes” (1), rhetoric distanced from the body, seeing it as something not worthy or moreover harmful. The focus was always on “the mind and its powers” (2). Further, the body was ostracized, in particular the female body and the disabled body. They were seen as source of disease and decay. Dolmage argues that this attitude was the fear of disease and moral decay that our ancestors had towards the body. This idea reminds me of the Bible quote that applies to this idea, in Mathew 26:41:“Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Nevertheless, Dolmage believes that while bodies have, in the past, been seen as bad and unpleasant, they can be seen as rhetorical sites of embodied multiplicity.
Phoebe Shih Chao, in “Tattoo and Piercing: Reflections on Mortification”, shows that the bodies that are decorated reflect the person’s self and shows that they are trying to alienate themselves from any kind of social norms or rules that might have caused some kind of pain or could be just a way of stablishing a “new” identity .The author sums up all of this by saying that "body decoration has become a visual rhetoric of liberty, equality, and fraternity, at the same time it is an expression of globalization" (336). Chao says that, “they are consubstantial in their need to show how they are one with a group, part of a community, but they still remain distinct as individuals” (331). So, while people that have tattoos and also piercings are trying to distance themselves from the rest, they somehow identify themselves with other people with tattoos, making them part of groups, but distinctive in their own way. Interestingly enough, the author declares that the bearers of tattoos are not segmented anymore; there, as stated in the article, as many women, or more, as there are men with tattoos and that this phenomenon is not a characteristic of marginal or lower class groups.
Reading the article “Women’s Magazines in Ecuador: Re-reading ‘la Chica Cosmo’” seemed very appropriate after being introduced to rhetorical bodies and discussing what rhetorical purposes bodies may have. The way we dress, both men and women, for example, says a lot about who we are. It conveys messages about what we value, or whom we may support. What if popular culture was, in a way, dictating how we should dress? What if popular culture suggested that certain brands or styles of clothing were “norms,” influencing what we choose to wear? I think the answer to both of these questions are “yes, this not new information.” In fact, it is very typical of the consumerist culture we live in. What if Western culture directly influenced how women in other cultures dressed or thought of themselves? What if Western culture dictated the norms of other cultures? This is also true, and requires much more than a one-sentence answer.
Erynn Masi de Casanova’s article, which was mentioned by name in the previous paragraph, asserts that magazines such as Cosmopolitan “damage women socially and psychologically” (89). The word cosmopolitan is defined as “familiarity with may different cultures and countries” (dictionary.com). This is particularly striking considering the magazine Cosmopolitan seems to rhetorical suggest quite the opposite. And, to go further, Casanova writes, “Many advertising campaigns for U.S. or European products are not changed prior to distribution in Latin America, conveying a universalized, generic, and (almost always) white ideal of beauty” (92). Since this is the case, and many magazines have influence over how women, for example, in Latin American countries view and interpret what is beautiful, seems to perpetuate a form of socialization or re-socialization. By this, I mean that women are in Latin American countries are interpreting “ideal beauty” with direct influence from the West.
“Ideal beauty” can be summed up quite quickly. Having “delicate features” such as small noses, light skin, blonde hair, and thighs that don’t touch are all features that are defined by the West as beautiful and make their way into how other cultures define beauty. Youth is also highly valued, and there are ways in which people can “correct” their supposed abnormalities through cosmetics, which can be interpreted as having multiple meanings. Casanova believes that these messages, and others, suggest, “although Latin American women are inherently less attractive than their first-world counterparts, they can correct this problem through the use of proscribed cosmetics and wardrobes that have the power to blot out culture, racial, and social differences” (93). The influence the West has over the definition of beauty, and the way we can make ourselves more beautiful, is difficult to deny.
While the West is guilty of having influence on women’s dress, cosmetic purchases, and style, I want to be fair in my criticism. Influences are not always malicious, and suggestive of forced conformity, but the way beauty is valued is absolutely worthy of criticism. To suggest that beauty has a norm is counterproductive to establishing a society (or societies) that places value on people as a whole.
Rethorics of Display, by Phebe S. Chao, analyses the significance and impact that tattoos and piercings had and the way this has changed over time. Chao presents Burke’s point of view on what the significance of the tattoos meant in certain contexts and locations, “For example, the prisoner…feel guilty for his crime…in prison…his act of crying out loud…a nonverbal gesture of defiance-a tattoo.” (330). Shaving and wearing makeup are examples of body decoration such as Tattoos and piercing are a type of body decoration, but most of the time tattoos or piercings may be seen as “uncivilized” and even degrading. Tattoos and piercings used to be something exclusively for “the convicts or drug addicts”, people somehow that did not obey the norms of a society, which made these art forms look “evil” and with negative connotations. As time went by, people from different social classes and age started using tattoos and piercings making it become more “mainstream”. The tattoos and piercing are ways of expressing something, they have a message, and their meaning will be conveyed through the “lenses” we use to see them.
Out of Athens by Page duBois “wraps” itself around the topic “who is or not” considered normal and the implications. It provides examples of how people (e.g. magicians, shamans, freaks, etc), considered as abnormal and/or unnatural, have been seen throughout the years. Someone considered a freak or “unnatural” in the nineteenth century could cause both “fascination and disgust”. Then duBois introduces the story of Epimenides who was a Greek poet and also considered a magician, and who, because of his “abnormality”, helped Greece with his “supernatural” powers. He had tattoos or writings of his “story” marked all over his body, which was something aesthetic and admired by the Greeks at the time, but later when he was dead made him a “monster”; “Although tattoos may not have had such associations in the archaic age, for later readers Epimenides’ tattoos marked him as abnormal, even monstrous.” (70).In Epimenides’s case, his unnatural capabilities were a “blessing” to the Greek people, but in other cases, what is different is ridiculed and alienated. Whether or not something is “freakish” or abominable is very subjective, and whenever the physical (dis)ability of a person suits one’s interests, it is celebrated and worshiped, not diminished.
Metis, Metis, Mestiza, Medusa by Jay Dolmage argues that rhetoric can be “read” and represented in a body. Dolmage advocates that philosophers in the past had overlooked the body and saw it as a distraction to the intellect, something “unworthy of containing” knowledge, and their focus was on the “mind and its powers” (2). The human body was portrayed as evil, especially the female body, and the only part of the human being worth “valuing” or studying was the brain as well as the human soul. Dolmage then introduces the word Metis (meaning wise and intelligence), which is also the name for the Greek Goddess Metis, in a context where it is representative of an embodied intelligence and arguing “…metis is a way to recognize that all rhetoric is embodied.” (6). The Goddess Metis was Zeus’s wife in the Greek mythology and was swallowed by Zeus so that he could embody Metis’ intelligence. It is interesting to see that a woman, who had been both diminished and depicted as crippled just because of her body by the philosophers, was used by the most powerful figure of Greek mythology in order to become more powerful, smarter and wiser. Dolmage also presents the story of Medusa, who in the Greek mythology became “…a symbol of female embodiment…) (14). In the past, “…the Medusa myth…warns that proud women…, who speak out, will be made ugly…) (14), but nowadays a self-sufficient woman, who is proud and has no fear to speaking out, is seen as “beautiful” and someone to be admired. The way people see and behave in relation to a physical disability depends on the society and the time they are living in, where what is different may be either a curse or a blessing, but what we should is respect and appreciate what is different and extraordinary.
Rhetorics of Display:
I was intrigued when I saw that we would be reading about tattooing and piercing and the ideas that surrounded these two things. I think that the article was completely right that we do often pair these two things together and see them as one unified group. I had never thought deeply into who a person with a tattoo is within society. I have personally never been interested in tattooing my body the idea of something permanently on me is much too big of a decision to make. I can barely commit to what I am having for dinner. However, all of my friends have at least one tattoo. Their tattoos are just there… I honestly don’t even notice them anymore at this point they are just part of who they are to me. I think that since I grew up in a generation where tattoos were completely normal and it was a common “right of passage” when you turn 18, you get your first tattoo that I never thought of the time when it was not normal for people of all classes and genders to get tattoos. I think that the type of tattoo you see a person has still will put them into a certain group. For example, if you see someone with a particularly aggressive or vulgar tattoo you think of that person as the same. It has been written about a lot that tattoos are further expressions of a person. It makes sense that if a person is putting tattoos that are meant to look scary or aggressive that they want society to look at them in that way. I think that it makes perfect sense that “…both practices are symbolic acts of transformation…” You have to have a reason behind why you choose to put a certain image or certain words on your body. Some reasons I am sure are better than other reasons, but reasons nonetheless.
Out of Athens:
I have to be honest and state my ignorance about Plato and his beliefs. I did not know how much he thought down about the women and the women body. When in the reading it said, “He states that “the female is, as it were, a mutilated male,” establishing man as the baseline and women both as pure aberrancy and as responsible for all deviation.” I was shocked. So women are mistakes on this earth and everything that comes from them is bad? So when women give birth then all children come from a deviate. Wouldn’t that then make all humans disabled? His beliefs were just so odd to read. He went on to say, “…the feminine body is particularly disabling and disabled.” It is clear how he felt about women. I can’t help but to wonder about the relationship he had with his mother.
Homework Week 7 and 8
“Metis, Mêtis, Mestiza, Medusa: Rhetorical Bodies across Rhetorical Traditions”
While reading “Metis, Mêtis, Mestiza, Medusa: Rhetorical Bodies across Rhetorical Traditions” by Jay Dolmage, I kept thinking about how rhetorical images have been used in depicting “monsters” in mythology. For example, the Centaurs (half man/half horse) uses the image of the male torso to demonstrate aggression and the strength of the horse to show strength. In this article, the female Medusa (living snakes for hair) is depicted as a monstrous, yet powerful creature turning her victims to stone. In turn, it demonstrates the ways mythology highlights strength and aggression for its males and cruelty and abuse from its females through rhetorical images. Another form of gender predisposition perhaps? Overall, I found the article very interesting.
“The Tattoos of Epimenides”
During the reading of “The Tattoos of Epimenides” I also began to make connections to rhetorical imagery and how society can regard it. For instance, Epimendis’ was marked and the community viewed him as “monstrous”; his symbol categorized him as a possession, “the criminal, the slave”. The societal norms to segregate anybody that is classified as “abnormal” reflects some of the prejudicial behaviors observed in our own society today. For example, in the media I have witnessed how many differences are not viewed as uniqueness, but considered unconventional; the reactions of some towards scar victims, amputees and other physical or mental deficiencies are not always accommodating and unfortunate “hate crimes” occur.
In the media several years ago, a young Afghan wife was punished for fleeing her abusive husband; Aesha Mohammadzai had her nose and ears cut from her body. Although it is not a tattoo classifying her as a “deserting spouse”, mutilation has been used as a tool to separate her from traditional wives. Also, in the literary work “The Scarlett Letter” a wife that practiced infidelity, was made to wear a “symbol” to highlight her indiscretion. This work of literature is considered part of our literary cannon and has been read by most scholars. In comparison, I can’t recall another work that features a male indiscretion in a negative light. Overall, the frustrating question is who is the one that decides the definition of “abnormal” and how did they attain the power to do so?
“Tattoo and Piercing”
This article focused on identity and the rhetorical image. Overall, I enjoyed the reading of this article because it contemplated the desire an individual has for tattoo’s and piercing. The reading focused on self-image and, “the rhetoric of the pierced true believer emphasizes pride in difference, ability to take pain, but the repulsion of the critical spectator, the unconvinced, is expressed in pejorative analysis”. This illustrates the aspiration of individuality that some people require; there is no concern about how they are viewed, but instead the focus relies upon the self-expression and identity. In turn, it gave me insight into why my own daughter (and family members), have chosen to have their bodies tattooed and pierced.
HW # 8
“Be a feminist or just dress like one’: BUST, fashion and feminism as lifestyle” by Elizabeth Groeneveld
In the article Groeneveld evaluates the power of fashion and how women perceive their femininity. The stereotype of women dressing unfashionably, making them an outcast of societal norms. The reference to “burning of the bra” and women’s rights in regards to societies esteem to fashion is in extreme contrast. Why is it that a woman who is dressed in a stylish manner considered by the public to be of higher esteem than a woman dressed in casual clothes? It seems that the rhetorical (and gender biased) image of societal beliefs made this decision.
When I am dressed professionally, I am more confident in my manner and behavior with others, but not necessarily comfortable. Whereas, when I “dress down” I am comfortable, but may not be perceived or appreciated by my audience. It all comes back to image and acceptance by the defined social norms our society has determined. During a conference the female speaker in a power suit is more likely to be given attention, than one in just jeans and a shirt even as they share the same knowledge for the current lecture.
Overall, last week’s reading and this one both share in the concept of rhetorical image providing either positive or negative power. Whether it is bodily enhancement through tattoos, piercing or mutilations or in turn, stylish clothing, the outer rhetorical image is all the audience inspects in their determination of classification.
“Women’s Magazines in E
“Women’s Magazines in Ecuador: Re-reading “la Chica Cosmo”
This article focuses on the rhetorical images of the cosmopolitan woman; the ideal beauty promoted through media image. The Ecuadorian model does not depict the average female of the country, which in turn, emphasizes the impractical beauty standards of society. The media promotes idealistic “beauty images” or standards as the norm, but in turn, are distorting the audiences view of the average woman’s body. This causes the women readers to imitate styling and image to mirror the models, as well as, the unrealistic goal and its negative effects of low self-esteem, eating disorders and unrestrained dieting.
Unfortunately, the media uses the ideal female image as a goal that females should attain, even though it is nearly impossible to reach said goal as most of the female body types are average. What I found most frustrating about the article, is that the model doesn’t even represent, in appearance, a female of Ecuadorian heritage; she is much lighter skinned with lighter hair than the average female, which in turn, makes it an impossible and unattainable aspiration to reach for the average, traditional female population. In turn, this can lead to a distorted view on how future generations view the female body.
I found the piece Metis, Metis (I don’t know how to add that accent), Medusa: Rhetorical Bodies across Rhetorical Traditions by Jay Dolmage to be pretty interesting. Initially, I power in the fact that the intelligence of women and their physical bodies are threatening, however, in attempts to preserve masculinity that power is immediately diminished. It pissed me off that a woman’s body is devalued and that the female offspring is seen as the first step to monstrosity. It’s upsetting to see that there is such negativity attached to a woman’s body. It’s strange to see that not much has changed, except the negativity is stemmed from cultural rhetoric of media and advertisements telling women what they should look like and how they can get there. Dolmage says, “Fear of the body and of bodily difference has limited our ability to recognize and communicate with and from our own real bodies”. It really is insane how the mindsets of those in the fast are so connected to our world today. As I said previously, our society has an ideal image that girls everywhere try to reach. Most of us know that it is stupid to want it and we should love ourselves as we are, yet, most of us still strive for it. We disconnect ourselves from appreciating the body that we live and if we can’t show self-love how can we show outwardly love? I also was unnerved that femininity and disability were pretty much seen as the same thing, and to make it worse “disability has been used to justify discrimination against” groups. How could human beings so idiotic and sick? I will never understand. While discussing rhetoric, I found it a little strange that it was depicted in such a dark and “evil” way. Rhetoric was seen as disabling, and where philosophy was seen as a connection to the soul, rhetoric was connected to the pleasures of the body. Which, I mean, in this day in age we are all for the pleasures of the body whether platonic or not. I’ll steer clear of anything inappropriate but if you think about food. We like to say that food feeds the soul but it also is pleasurable to your palate and your body. Although this isn’t an emotional and philosophical example, it does show, that despite these guys’ efforts to dichotomize the two, I think they are very much so related and one without the other is… what? One line that stood out to me was, “[Humans have always exercised the right to make choices about the anatomical features that they consider desirable or interesting” which is really a way of saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thinking further on it, we all have personal preferences on what we deem beautiful which is disconnected to whether or not someone sees us as beautiful; but where does this come from? Unfortunately, it is our culture, society, media etc., unless you’re lucky enough to live in the woods your entire life and have been socialized far away from the “norm” and mainstream of our world. However, I’m choosing to read this line in a motivational way, where it’s telling me that I have the power to make a choice about what I consider beautiful… and although I have given that power to the culture and society that surrounds me I have the choice to take it back and decide for myself (easier said than done but it is nonetheless in my every right and power to do so). If we all exercised this, it would go against what is discussed later on in this reading, where all of the stories through history have themes of bodily oppression.
I thought I was going to like the reading The Tattoos of Epidemenides… but unfortunately, I did not. I did, however, think that it was interesting that the “monster” is a notion that “concerns the laws of nature as well as the laws of society.” This makes a lot of sense and connects to Dolmage’s piece about how society controls our views on what are beautiful, disfigured, or what is the “monster”. I always thought about how our society shapes our views on what is beautiful and what we want but I never thought about how our society forms on what we find to be the “monster.” Also, although it is pessimistic, I love the line, and “Anyone who lives for a long time is bound to see and endure many things he would rather avoid” It’s harsh but true and it’s something that a lot of us do not think about. I’ve only let my mind wander there when I think about the future (way distant future) and how I don’t want to outlive all of my loved ones. Other than experiences like that, having more time means we have the ability to have more great experiences but also negative ones as well. Later on, in the passage, while discussing tattoos, tattoos are connected to being a “freak” and that tattoos were associated with abnormality, barbarism, punishment, enslave
This week, we read two articles that addressed concerns related to the subject of the representation of women in magazines. “’Be a feminist or just dress like one’: BUST, Fashion and Feminism as Lifestyle” by Elizabeth Groenveld focused on the implications of a single fashion spread in an issue of BUST magazine. “Women’s Magazines in Ecuador: Re-reading ‘la Chica Cosmo’” by Erynn Masi de Casanova was a critical analysis of thirteen issues of magazines sold in Ecuador around 2000. Both studies pointed out the ways in which the magazines visually and textually limited the visibility of some segments of their audiences by using a high ratio of White and light-skinned models with “delicate” features and oversimplifying the viewpoints expressed by the people of color they do feature. Both authors found elements of the magazines under study to be problematic but came to nuanced conclusions rather than dismissing their value altogether.
Groenveld asserted that there is more to feminism than how one dresses but allowed that choices in attire can be subversive, citing Judith Butler’s discussion of drag as an example. Interestingly, while the BUST article overestimated the extent to which feminism is a “lifestyle choice”, Groenveld made a great point about the implied intended audience, which would seem to exclude hijabi women through the failure to recognize their modest dress as a choice. The quotes selected to accompany the images of the featured feminists also painted various feminisms as a monolith. Angela Davis’ photo is “hopelessly decontextualized”, and the BUST article disregards the implications of her chosen hairstyle, prioritizing her work as a feminist and ignoring race altogether (184). Many Black women choose to wear an Afro to celebrate their natural beauty and resist pressure to conform to White standards. The magazine article shows Angela Davis with her iconic Afro hairstyle but limits its rhetorical power by failing to discuss its significance in an effort to forge a sense of a collective raceless feminist identity. As Groenveld argued, we have to remember to consider readers’ interaction with the text, and increasingly, with each other online. Problematic media can still inspire important discussions. Tumblr, for example, is one avenue where users debate representations in magazines, film, etc. and make their cases for where they stand. While the rare movie that does not offend on some level is certainly refreshing, I personally find that the movies that fall slightly short of the mark keep me on my toes and help me to consciously consider what I am consuming.
The analysis of the magazines in Ecuador was interesting because the rhetorics involved were somewhat more implicit and not part an article about the politics of image per se, but once again, we saw White women’s interests presented as the standard, even when the magazines targeted a predominately mestizo audience. Masi de Casanova’s point that “Reflecting the legacy of colonialism, Latin American intellectuals, artists and politicians consistently valorize the white/European/First World “other” at the expense of the autochthonous mestizo and the dark/indigenous/American “other”” reminded me of Villanueva’s argument for a deliberate turn toward appreciating one’s culture’s own great thinkers (92). I think it is interesting how the idea of blanqueamiento in Latin America differs from constructions of race in the United States. The saddest part of this reading, in my opion, was the discussion of Kondo’s concept of “autoexoticising” and how readers of the magazines would see people who resembled them depicted in an animalistic way so that it would be easier to identify with the lighter-skinned models. It is easy for me as a privileged White woman to say that conformity is boring and that these women are beautiful and should resist the pressure to devalue their own features and appearances, but, as Groenveld showed, these are not simple choices made by individuals in a vacuum. Just as the hegemony of English has nothing to do with the inherent superiority of the language, the dominance of White beauty ideals has more to do with economics than aesthetics. I agree with Masi de Casanova that the idea of modernization is too simple and that the nature of the contact with the aspects of Western culture that Ecuadorians have imported is to influence but not replace their own culture. Still, I hope we as humans evolve beyond this tendency toward reducing all our locally relevant cultural differences and borrow what makes sense to us instead of what is marketed to us most aggressively.
The readings for the week of the 21st provided an excellent examination of issues relating to the body. The piece that resonated with me the most was Jay Dolmage piece “Metis, Metis, Mestiza, Medusa: Rhetorical Bodies across Rhetorical Traditions”, which challenged the traditional primacy of philosophy over rhetoric. As someone who has both an interest in philosophy as well as Greek myths, it was interesting to see how Dolmage used greek myths to subvert traditional ways of thought. I especially liked how he assigned to rhetoric the image of the body, and further explained how the body was seen as a site of disease and therefore, was inferior to the mind which was the house for philosophy. The mind body relationship therefore served as an allegory to the debate between philosophy and rhetoric, with the former being favored. In addition to this relationship, Dolmage points out how the body has often been feminized and therefore was seen as weaker.
What I liked the most about Dolmage’s piece was how he used Greek myths to challenge traditional thought related to rhetoric and philosophy. His study of the creature Medusa best illustrates his point, as it involves a grotesque body and furthermore, is a body of a woman. The story of Medusa has always been one of my favorite greek myths. In short, Medusa was a creature with snakes for hair whose gaze could turn all who gazed on her to stone. She was defeated by the hero Perseus who used a mirror shield to reflect her image back at her. For the longest time, I read this myth as a standard story of good vs. evil, with Perseus assigned in the heroic role and Medusa as the enemy that had to be vanquished. Dolmage’s piece subverts this myth by reconsidering the creature of Medusa not as a monster, but almost a sympathetic creature, one of whom was punished for being a woman. Dolmage brings to the discussion of the Medusa myth Helene Cixous’ thoughts on how Medusa was punished for not only being a woman, but for challenging the traditional patriarchy. Dolmage explains Cixous's thoughts on this matter: “Medusa is a dangerous, beautiful, intelligent woman, so she must die.” For Cixous, Medusa represented a threat, and therefore had to be destroyed. Dolmage sees the twisted and distorted body of Medusa as representing a body that is being oppressed because of its grotesque appearance and because it is the body of a woman. Instead of reading the myth of Medusa as I had previously done, I now saw it in a different way. Instead of being about a triumph over a monster, it was now about the punishment of a body for being grotesque and belonging to a woman.
I never saw the body as being something bad, but Dolmage’s delineation of the view of the body, made sense to me when viewed through the context of traditional greek thought. Overall, I found his piece to be quite fascinating in its exploration of how the body and by extension rhetoric was seen as inferior, through assigning to the body a distorted and diseased image. And, the idea that the body was also seen as feminine, and therefore argued to be of the weaker sex, was also something that I had previously not considered. This essay was eye opening to me.
Women’s Magaines in Ecuador: Re-reading “la Chica Cosmo” by Erynn Masi de Casanova. My interest was piqued at the very beginning while discussing a woman in an image on the cover of Cosmopolitan; de Casanova says, “The rose-petal print of the dress invokes the stereotype of nonwhite women as being close to nature.” When I see women wearing flower print dresses, I usually don’t think “ah, they are one with nature,” and after looking up the cover of the magazine, I didn’t think that it looked like she was close to nature at all. If anything, that dress would get extremely dirty in nature and the rose petals looked more like artsy paint brush strokes than rose petals. Certain claims just feel forced to me, especially when they are so dependent on a person’s opinion, whereas there is solid evidence to support claims. I do think that the objectification of the female body is discussed often but in that discussion, race, class, and colonialism is lost when it is encoded in the image as well. Unfortunately, I am embarrassed to admit that I had not thought about this until now, which shows that we have to bring this to the attention of our peers; sometimes we miss what are right in front of us/under our noses. I highlighted way too much in this article, so I’ll talk about a few main things that peaked my interest. On page 92, de Casanova discusses the way of life in Ecuador in terms of how they categorize and treat people, which is by how they dress. An individual’s clothing “acts as a visual gauge of his or her place on the modern-traditional continuum; in the words of the band, Bowling for Soup, “high school never ends.” Authenticity is communicated through dress and fashion, which is ironic because if you’re keeping up with the fashion trends of your culture, how can you be authentic? “The desire to be beautiful is universal” also stood out to me; this true, but of course, beauty is not only in the eyes of the beholder, it also changes throughout time periods, locations, cultures etc. Unfortunately, in Ecuador and other countries, the idea of what is beautiful is universalized and generic, almost always being the white ideal of beauty. I find this funny because most white women don’t even fit under this category, I know that I don’t. This desire to fit this description is impossible to obtain and sets women up for failure and disappointment, especially after the proscribed cosmetics and wardrobes come up short. Another part of this piece that stood out to me was the discussion on nonwhites in publications. While discussing how nonwhite women are portrayed in publications, de Casa explains that they are associated with barbarism and backwardness. Not only are these women portrayed as uncivilized through their dress and possibly positioning in the photograph, the women that are nonwhite are usually light skinned and have Caucasian-type features; they look soft and “delicate” in these pictures. Not only is this wrong, but I can see how the commercialization of this idea of what is beautiful is reflected into our society. What I mean is, I have had friends and have met people who say that they aren’t attracted to black guys or girls on a sexual level; that is, unless he or she is lighter skinned, “melato”, like Chris Brown, Will Smith, or Halle Berry. When people said this, I thought it was just personal preference, but now I’m thinking that this idea of beautiful or that this type of “black” is attractive does stem from the media.
‘Be a feminist or just dress like one’: BUST, fasion and feminism as life style by Elizabeth Groeneveld bothered me from the beginning. I’ve always disliked the way that the way you dress connects you to a label, and if you aren’t able to justify or prove that you truly fit under this label, and then you are deemed a “poser”. On another note, I couldn’t help but think of Leslie Knope when Groeneveld discusses how in BUST’s fashion issue, feminism can be stylish and sexy depending on how you dress. I found it ironic that the magazine is discussing feminism when the magazine’s name is BUST (don’t tell me you didn’t think about boobs/a woman’s bust! Well… maybe you didn’t). Anyway, I hated the discussion about stereotypical images of feminists; they are either power-suit-wearing women or they are hippie, granola lesbians. BUST seems to be doing a backwards version of this by associating feminism with the fashion that they are presenting. I’m all over the place with what stood out to me in this reading, but I loved the line that some of the feminists claim that “bras or high-helled shoes, are both symbolically and literally constraining, restrictive impositions. I absolutely agree. I HATE BRAS. However, that has nothing to do wi
On this week’s readings we read the articles “‘Be a feminist or just dress like one’: BUST, fashion and feminism as lifestyle” by Elizabeth Groeneveld and “Women’s Magazines in Ecuador: Re-reading la Chica Cosmo” by Erynn Masi de Casanova. In the first one, Groeneveld builds up her article by analyzing the BUST Magazine’s view on women’s way of dressing. This magazine was created to be an alternative to other feminine magazines that, according to its editors, were full of stereotypes towards women. However, Groeneveld states that the magazine segregates and creates a specific audience that she calls “hip”, modesty, religion or alternative dress choices, such as suits and Birkenstocks were not welcome. We are, then, presented with the relation between fashion and feminism in which these two ideas were in the opposite sides. They were seen as incompatible and that they had to reject one another. Nevertheless, over time, there were people that saw this relationship in a different perspective and believed that “through fashion, we fashion ourselves, and have the opportunity to create and explore alternatives” (4) and then pointed out the example of drag as an “example of the potential ways in which dress can play a role in broader projects of resistance and/or subversion” (4). The author criticizes the magazine’s one way vision on feminism by stating it as “limited” and claims that “fashion is ambivalent – for when we dress we wear inscribed upon our bodies the often obscure relationship of art, personal psychology, and the social order” (5) and so is the feminism perspective on fashion.
Casanova presents us with an article that gives a different look upon magazines issued in Ecuador. She goes further in analyzing the magazines and their covers and tries to give a broader interpretation of their messages. One of the firsts things that pops up in the article is the fact that, in Ecuador, the act of buying magazines such as Cosmopolitan is a way of differentiate; it is a “sign of prestige” (90) and that also, there are more white female models in Latin audience magazines than any other ethnicity. The magazines promote a higher class life style that “should” be imitated or, at least, aspired. Middle and upper-class women are their main consumer and thus, the magazines main target. The author argues the commercialization of global culture through these feminine type of magazines and says that there is a valorization “of the foreign/Western” and the “white ideal of beauty” which leads to a depreciation of nonwhite ideal of beauty. At her conclusion, Casanova states that “whiteness is valued, but brown is also acceptable (when combined with the right figures, clothing, and class status)”; this idea is actually very frightening. How the society sees and values women is largely influenced by how magazines and printed rhetoric portraits women. Should magazines and printed rhetoric have that much power over us, our vision of the world, and the way see our reality?
The article BUST, fashion and feminism as lifestyle by Elizabeth Groeneveld is a critique to the BUST magazine. In 2006, the BUST magazine announced a fashion issue entitled Be a feminist or just dress like one, which, in the eyes of Elizabeth, was “…a rather simplistic view of that history.” (179). For Elisabeth, this issue by BUST magazine generates inside her a contradictory feeling, since the magazine both “honors and dishonors” the history of feminism. BUST portrays the feminists as superfluous…more “desirable” yet superfluous. Elizabeth argues that BUST presents a particular version about the meaning of feminist to the public and “…reduces it to a story that is only about gender differences.” (184) and ignores the “…contestations and dynamic exchanges that have made feminism movements exciting, mutable, and not always ‘safe’ for those in power.” (185). According to her, being a feminist should not be reduced to a simple piece of clothing since being a feminist also has political implications. It seems as if this magazine is only trying to make the women buy the outfits instead of make them become more active in order to fight for the ideals and values upon which the feminists stand.
Erynn Casanova also writes the article Women Magazines in Ecuador: Re-reading ‘la chica Cosmo’ as a way of showing her “discontent” toward the way women are depicted in the Latin America magazines. Casanova shows how the magazines use their power to reach millions of people and spread the necessity for consumerism. The Latin America magazines try to sell only one “type” of beauty, clothing, fashion, which is the North American or the European one. They try to “globalize” things, but in this exchange and “effort for unification”, where every side is supposed to contribute with something, only one “culture” seems to stand out. The physical characteristics displayed in the magazines about what beauty is, or at least should be, are people being white, thin, well dressed, which does not represent the diversity in Latin America countries, and lots of other countries/cultures. The magazines seem to be designed by “elitist to elitist people”, and if you are, it makes you feel desperate in order to become a part of the “elite”. According to Casanova, the Black women or Mestizas, when they appear in the magazines, they tend to be associated with nature, or to the “wilderness” which makes them look “uncivilized” or “non-cosmopolitan” or modern. Nonetheless, Casanova also acknowledges a few Latin American magazines who try to “embrace”, rather than diminish or “reject”, their Mestizo characteristic (98). It seems as if all the mainstream magazine’s only goal it to “format” people, make them all look alike, without personality, dictating the way they should look and behave, in order to be more attractive/intelligent. The thing, I believe, that makes people beautiful is their differences and “nuances” and the “system’s” attempt to make people “beautiful” will end up making them look “ugly”.
The article “Be a feminist or just dress like one”, deals with the importance of the culture of clothing in women’s lives. Look at the title it brings up to mind that many women may dress like one but they may not behave list a feminist does. In Cape Verde, my mother, aunties… dress as any women does but they do not share the feminist ideology since they see man as the head of society and women as fragile race. Feminist issue it is something that I have never stop to think about. In fact, the mean of feminist it is something that I will take a close look. For many times I have heard the word ‘feminist’ and the first idea that usually comes up in my mind is that women who consider themselves as feminist have bad idea about man. The author refers to Miss America protest and cited Savage (1998) who argues that the perspectives on the relationship between feminism and fashion were ambivalent in this period. Gronebeld borrow from Wilson to identify two feminist approaches to fashion: one was a condemnation of fashion as an oppressive tool of the patriarchy; the other, a kind of populist liberalism, suggested that it would be elitist…The author shows us that people in the protest have different way of perceiving fashion. The feminist protest seems to be an attempt to call the society attention about gender matters.
“La Chica Cosmo” Casanova argues that in Ecuador, buying magazines is perceived as cosmopolitan. Since the term cosmopolitan is associated with the upper class, it is undeniable that poor women find themselves in a difficult position to purchase the magazine. Casanova in the article discusses the misrepresentation of women through text and images. The image of the supermodel/actress Patricia Veslaques with the rose-petal, in the Cosmopolitan magazine according to Casanova it is an attempt ‘to invokes the stereotypes’ due to the fact she is a nonwhite women. However, Casanova argues that the supermodel racial inferiority is moderated by the fact that she was raised for part of her childhood in France and that she has achieved success in the international world of modeling (69). Interesting when Casanova gives examples of publication with white and nonwhite models in the photographs and articles. She refers to Gwyneth Paltrow and Nicole Kidman as favorite subjects for photographs and articles for being white. Meanwhile, she discusses the different images in which Mestiza and black model appears. According to the author they appear ‘half-naked’, ‘dressing in animal prints, ‘crawling toward camera’ ‘depicted outdoor’. All this images portrayed in the photographs basically shows the dominance of white models as being regarded as a part of civilization and modernity, while the nonwhite models represent the nature, ‘the barbarism and backwardness’. Comaroff cited by Casanova argues that fashion is an emblem of prestige due to its ability to “render those who do not wear it ‘out of date’ and parochial. The power of fashion is seen here; how fashion can tell apart members of society. This issue is not confined to Ecuador, but also to my country where people give others credit by the way they dress. I am wondering if this issue is also typically in US. As I could see from the article in Ecuador people inherit the spirit and ideology of colonization and it still so rooted.
Women’s Magazines in Ecuador
It was interesting to read about a variety of magazines that are sold in other countries and the way that things were represented. I found the statistics particularly interesting when she collected a sample of thirteen issues of women’s magazines from 1999-2001. She further discussed the images and broke it down into race, nationality, and hair color. I was not that shocked by the statistic that the majority of models represented were white female models at 52%. I think I saw this statistic coming because of all the information that was provided prior to this in the article. I was surprised that the majority of models were blonde at 49%. Then I thought back and it said that these magazines were pulled from 1999-2001 so I found that less surprising. I think that if this study was done now that statistic would be a lot different. I think that recently dark hair has become a more popular look among fashion editors and contributors. This conclusion makes me think further into the differences that there would be if this study was done now. Even though it has only been 13 years since the study wrapped I think that there would be a significant change in data.
“Revistas femeninas not only allow upper-class women to imitate foreign trendsetters, but also exploit the middle class woman’s desire to emulate her upper-class counterparts and distinguish herself from the massive lower class.” I never saw magazines as playing such a large role in the lives of women everywhere. The power of the things that are advertised in women’s magazines is pretty incredible. The fact that the fashion within the pages of these magazines can influence so many groups of people to dress a certain way and live a certain way is pretty scary. It is something that I never would have looked at in this way if it had not been presented to me. This article also states, “The physical model of beauty presented in transnational women’s magazines is a women who is “young, white with European features, thin, stylish… well-off, well-dressed, perfectly coiffed, and fashionably made up””. I hope that this “model of beauty” has changed since this article was published. I like to think that our society is evolving little by little.
Be a feminist or just dress like one
I found it interesting that BUST magazine ran this article with this title. It was made clear through this research article that they presented only one view of feminism through this article. I think that it is great that they are attempting to make feminism approachable for all women however I don’t think they need to simplify the concept down so far to make it approachable. I think the way they reffered to the BUST article as
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.