Observation:
I work as host in a hotel restaurant. I decided to do my observations from my greeter’s stand at the front of the restaurant. I observed restaurant patrons for the length of my Friday night shift. I have decided focus on three couple’s for my observation and analysis. While more patrons were observed, I believed these three couples to be the most significant in analyzing and relating to back popular culture and romance.
Couple #1
In the restaurant I first observed an older couple in their fifties. This couple is regulars; they sit in the same booth every Friday and order the same meal. There was very little chat or interaction between the couple. Very little affection like hand holding or hugging was observed. They seem to have been married for many years.
Couple #2
Another couple observed was a family of three. The parents looked to be in their forties and the child was elementary school aged. The couple was celebrating a wedding anniversary as noted in the reservation book. The husband made the reservation and had a large floral arrangement delivered to the table before their arrival. Once the couple arrived there was very little affection between the couple. The husband entered the restaurant before his family. He simply states that he has a reservation and nothing more. The wife follows in with their child. The wife and child are enthralled in their own conservation and the husband is promptly ignored. I sit the family at their table that has been adorned with a lovely bouquet. The wife sits in the booth with their daughter and the husband opposite of them. It is not until after I have handed out menus that the wife acknowledges the flowers and meekly offers thanks to her husband. Throughout the meal the female remains unengaged with her husband. Little conversation or affection is exchanged between the couple. The wife’s attention seems to be solely on the child and the husband seems to be focusing his attention on the activity outside their window.
Couple#3
Much different than the couple celebrating their wedding anniversary is a young couple on a date. This couple is in their mid to late twenties, both are attractive and well dressed. When they enter the restaurant they are holding hands and laughing and smiling at each other. I seat them at their table and both sit on the same side of the booth. The man remarks to me that sitting across from her is just too far away. For the duration of their meal the couple can be seen canoodling and whispering into each other’s ears. There is a lot physical interaction among the two and lots of eye contact is made. When they leave, again they are holding hands with very little room between their bodies. They are smiling and thank me profusely for a wonderful meal.
Analysis:
I chose to analyze these three couples out of all the other people observed because I believe that cumulatively they represent the traditional American romance. All three couples are white, and most likely from an affluent background given the pricing of the restaurant and their attire. The couples represent what Americans tend to expect in different stages of a long relationship. In the beginning, there is a certain level of affection that all new couples exhibit. The constant touching, hand holding and whispering sweetly to one another is expected. Couple #3 clearly exhibits all the characteristics of new love. The man wants to sit next to his woman and is unashamed of making his intentions and feelings for her known to a stranger. Throughout this couple’s dinner a steady conversation takes place, along with flirting and lighted hearted jokes that is evidenced by giggling and hand gestures. The sharing of intimate moments in public without regard to who’s watching is also typical of new love. New couples are so enamored with each other and the idea being in love that little else enters their periforary. Couple #3 is a clear representation of what I believe all relationships resemble in their early stages.
Moving on to Couple #2, this couple represents the way children can change any relationship. I do not know how this couple used to interact prior to having a child, but I do assume that the relationship was at some point very much like Couple #3’s relationship. This couple’s daughter is clearly the wife’s most important priority. I wonder if the child had not been there if the celebration of their anniversary would have gone differently. The wife seems to mostly ignore her husband and barely offers any thanks for the thoughtfulness of flowers on their anniversary. Children usually add a new kind of stress to a marriage that does not subside until after the children have moved out of the house and the couple can reconnect with one another. This is clearly shown by Couple #2. The husband seems unfazed by his wife’s lackadaisical response to the bouquet of flowers. This suggests that maybe this was not the first time that he had been ignored by his wife in the presence of their daughter. I have to wonder what reaction the husband was hoping to illicit from his partner because neither one seemed too thrilled to be there having dinner together. In fact the only person who seemed excited about the flowers and the restaurant was the daughter. She was more excited about seeing the flowers than the man’s wife. Although the couple is supposed to be celebrating their anniversary, had it not been for the flowers, onlookers would have been hard pressed to see anything other than a couple and their child eating dinner out. This couple probably at one time adored each other, but their adoration has turned into steely demeanors and a noticeable longing to go home and find solace on their own side of the bed.
Couple #1 seem to have a steady routine within their life. They regularly come to the restaurant and have dinner at about the same time every week. During that time, the same behavior can always be observed between. Although there is very little affection, there does seem to be a comfortableness between them. This is what leads me to believe that they have been married for a very long time. They seem content with habitualness of their actions. Every Friday the wife orders the same entrée, and every Friday she forgets exactly how she likes it cooked. It is as though they are each playing a part and each knows their lines by heart. The only thing different about Couple #1 this Friday, than most other Fridays is that they ordered a dessert to share. Normally they order their entrées within the first five minutes of sitting down and after that has been eaten there is very little lingering. They are usually out with in an hour. However on this night they shared a dessert from across the table. It was the most intimate interaction I have observed between the couple. Couple #1 seems comfortable with the identies they formed for each other within their marriage. The wife is talkative and often answers most inquiries about their day and lives. The husband seems content to remain silent and allow his wife to do the talking.
From an observational stand point there is by no means anything that one would define as radical about any of the romances I observed. This in my opinion makes them even more interesting. Perhaps the radical romance does not actually exist. I’m not quite sure what would make any real life romance, radical, outside of the realm of fiction. Even gay and lesbian romances, fit the same bill. The only difference is that the sexes of the partners are the same. Every romance starts out in the same way. Maybe the real radical romances are the ones that begin and end the same. Still as happily and affectionately as they began.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof--- 9/12/10
The last couple of class sessions we have been talking about the Tennessee Williams play, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. For those who not read it (and everyone should, it’s an amazing piece of work) the play tells the story of a wealthy Mississippi family. The events are untold through the course of one day. During this day, issues of mortality, marriage, addiction, birth right and homosexuality are addressed with searing passion. The Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, written in 1955, was progressive for its time and still resonates with its contemporary audience
Big Daddy is the patriarch of the Pollitt family. He is a man who believes in hard work and is proud of the immense fortune he has made for himself. He is every bit the stereotype of a Southern plantation owner, but in many ways he much different than what you would expect. In my opinion Big Daddy is the most important character in the entire play. Throughout the play every character makes an attempt to understand Brick. Every character has their opinion about both Brick‘s alcoholism and his sexuality. Maggie, Brick’s wife, and Big Mama, his mother, try throughout the play to get answers from Brick, but they are never able to get more of a few words from him. Brick’s older Gooper and his wife Mae make up their own assumptions about Brick from conversations overheard through their shared walls. But it is Big Daddy who gets Brick to open up and speak truthfully about his relationship with Skipper and the source of his drinking problem. Big Daddy is persistent with Brick, just as the others are, but he relates to Brick’s “disgust with mendacity”. Big Daddy admits to hating his wife, his eldest son and his wife and kids. He admits that every day he lives a lie because “you’ve got to live with it, there’s nothing else to live with except mendacity…” (Williams 81). Hearing Big Daddy’s own admonition of hatred for his family seems to cause Brick to also release his own secrets and regrets. It is for this that I believe Big Daddy to be the most important character in the play. This strong wealthy, plantation owning Southern man was able break down his son’s defenses and extract more of the truth than any other character was able to. This symbolizes the type of man that I expect Big Daddy has been his entire life. Unafraid of obstacles, ready and willing to tackle them head first even if they are his own son‘s troubled life. So it seems understandable that Big Daddy is the only person Brick talks to about Skipper. Big Daddy seems invincible and strong, having returned from the doctor with what seems a clean bill of health, and the only one capable of carrying the burden of Brick’s secret. Any other character would have been too shocked to cope properly. Big Mama would have faint or sob, and Maggie would whine and baby Brick. But Brick is not looking for sympathy from anyone. He has too much pride for that, and so he tells Big Daddy. Who only listens as a friend and reassures his son. I was shocked by the reaction Big Daddy has to Brick when he talks about his relationship with Skipper. As I said before, Big Daddy is in many ways a stereotypical Southern farmer, but he is also incredibly atypical. I assumed that as a Southerner he would have little tolerance for a possibly gay son. But he does not get angry or shout at his son; instead he asks questions and delves even further into the truth. Most importantly Big Daddy does not allow Brick to “pass the buck” any longer. Big Daddy lays the truth out to Brick, “…We have tracked down the lie with which you’re disgusted and which you are drinking to kill your disgust with, Brick. You have been passing the buck. This disgust with mendacity is disgust with yourself.” (Williams 92).
Big Daddy is the patriarch of the Pollitt family. He is a man who believes in hard work and is proud of the immense fortune he has made for himself. He is every bit the stereotype of a Southern plantation owner, but in many ways he much different than what you would expect. In my opinion Big Daddy is the most important character in the entire play. Throughout the play every character makes an attempt to understand Brick. Every character has their opinion about both Brick‘s alcoholism and his sexuality. Maggie, Brick’s wife, and Big Mama, his mother, try throughout the play to get answers from Brick, but they are never able to get more of a few words from him. Brick’s older Gooper and his wife Mae make up their own assumptions about Brick from conversations overheard through their shared walls. But it is Big Daddy who gets Brick to open up and speak truthfully about his relationship with Skipper and the source of his drinking problem. Big Daddy is persistent with Brick, just as the others are, but he relates to Brick’s “disgust with mendacity”. Big Daddy admits to hating his wife, his eldest son and his wife and kids. He admits that every day he lives a lie because “you’ve got to live with it, there’s nothing else to live with except mendacity…” (Williams 81). Hearing Big Daddy’s own admonition of hatred for his family seems to cause Brick to also release his own secrets and regrets. It is for this that I believe Big Daddy to be the most important character in the play. This strong wealthy, plantation owning Southern man was able break down his son’s defenses and extract more of the truth than any other character was able to. This symbolizes the type of man that I expect Big Daddy has been his entire life. Unafraid of obstacles, ready and willing to tackle them head first even if they are his own son‘s troubled life. So it seems understandable that Big Daddy is the only person Brick talks to about Skipper. Big Daddy seems invincible and strong, having returned from the doctor with what seems a clean bill of health, and the only one capable of carrying the burden of Brick’s secret. Any other character would have been too shocked to cope properly. Big Mama would have faint or sob, and Maggie would whine and baby Brick. But Brick is not looking for sympathy from anyone. He has too much pride for that, and so he tells Big Daddy. Who only listens as a friend and reassures his son. I was shocked by the reaction Big Daddy has to Brick when he talks about his relationship with Skipper. As I said before, Big Daddy is in many ways a stereotypical Southern farmer, but he is also incredibly atypical. I assumed that as a Southerner he would have little tolerance for a possibly gay son. But he does not get angry or shout at his son; instead he asks questions and delves even further into the truth. Most importantly Big Daddy does not allow Brick to “pass the buck” any longer. Big Daddy lays the truth out to Brick, “…We have tracked down the lie with which you’re disgusted and which you are drinking to kill your disgust with, Brick. You have been passing the buck. This disgust with mendacity is disgust with yourself.” (Williams 92).
Monday, September 13, 2010
Philosophy of Language and Jerry Maguire
This week in class we discussed theories of language and the ways in which language defines society. We read very different works about language. The first is from Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and the second is from French philosopher Jacques Derrida.
Saussure---”Course in General Linguistics”
Saussure argues that in language, every word, or sign, is comprised of a signifier and the signified. The signifier represents the visual or the actual sound of the word. Whereas the signified is the concept that is conjured in the mind by the signifier. Saussure calls this relationship between the signifier and the signified arbitrary. Every sign needs a context in order to be relevant. The sign’s meaning is wholly dependent on location and time. Saussure believes that no sign can exist alone. The sign always has an “other”. All signs have a binary relationship with “other” signs. However Saussure says that there is still a moment of presence when a sign is only a marriage of the signifier and the signified, and the sign’s “other” plays no role in defining the sign.
Derrida---”Difference”
Contrary to Saussure, Derrida’s philosophy of language is more encompassing of sign and its “other”. Unlike Saussure who believes the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, Derrida goes even further to say that the sign itself is arbitrary. The sign is always dependent on time, place and its binary relationship. What the sign is not is just as important to its meaning as what the sign is. Derrida says that there is not moment of presence, where a sign exists alone. Instead every sign’s meaning is derived from its binary relationship. Modern day users of Derridian philosophers are lawyers and politicians. Derridian philosophy of language works to their benefit. Signs and their meanings can be manipulated to affect the audience’s understanding because no word stands alone the binary relationship will play in the audience’s mind. In the film Jerry Maguire, Jerry is a fast talking sports agent who uses language to his advantage. He uses language that can easily manipulated to his advantage. There is a scene where he asking his fiancé what people thought of him after he had been fired from his job. She ends up using the word “loser”. In Derridian philosophy, the moment “loser” is said is comprised of more than its signifier and signified but of its binary relationship to “winner” and the hierarchical relationship between the two.
Saussure---”Course in General Linguistics”
Saussure argues that in language, every word, or sign, is comprised of a signifier and the signified. The signifier represents the visual or the actual sound of the word. Whereas the signified is the concept that is conjured in the mind by the signifier. Saussure calls this relationship between the signifier and the signified arbitrary. Every sign needs a context in order to be relevant. The sign’s meaning is wholly dependent on location and time. Saussure believes that no sign can exist alone. The sign always has an “other”. All signs have a binary relationship with “other” signs. However Saussure says that there is still a moment of presence when a sign is only a marriage of the signifier and the signified, and the sign’s “other” plays no role in defining the sign.
Derrida---”Difference”
Contrary to Saussure, Derrida’s philosophy of language is more encompassing of sign and its “other”. Unlike Saussure who believes the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, Derrida goes even further to say that the sign itself is arbitrary. The sign is always dependent on time, place and its binary relationship. What the sign is not is just as important to its meaning as what the sign is. Derrida says that there is not moment of presence, where a sign exists alone. Instead every sign’s meaning is derived from its binary relationship. Modern day users of Derridian philosophers are lawyers and politicians. Derridian philosophy of language works to their benefit. Signs and their meanings can be manipulated to affect the audience’s understanding because no word stands alone the binary relationship will play in the audience’s mind. In the film Jerry Maguire, Jerry is a fast talking sports agent who uses language to his advantage. He uses language that can easily manipulated to his advantage. There is a scene where he asking his fiancé what people thought of him after he had been fired from his job. She ends up using the word “loser”. In Derridian philosophy, the moment “loser” is said is comprised of more than its signifier and signified but of its binary relationship to “winner” and the hierarchical relationship between the two.
American Psycho and the Post Modern Self----9/2/10
In this week’s reading, the author discusses identity. We all think that we have a handle on who we are. If asked today, who are you? We like to think that we could answer confidently and truhfully without any hesitation. Yet Barker suggests that perhaps the identity is not some entity created out of thin air and brought to fruition by yourself, with you being the biggest influence on your identity. But, that maybe identity pre-exists us. Anti-essentialist philosophy says that our identity is “culture specific”. That is to say that at the time of your birth the dominant culture, and the time and place that you live are already deciding what exactly your identity within your culture will be.
I must admit I found this all a bit “heady” and at times difficult to understand. But perhaps I was attempting to defend my own identity. That sense of self that I have always felt I determined for myself. I did not want society and its language to have such a hold on me that even though I think I have decided who I am; in actuality society had already made that decision for me.
Another aspect of identity is the concept of the post-modern self. The post-modern self is a socially constructed self comprised of multiple identities. This post-modern self is many things at many times depending upon what society requires of it. In class we watched a few scenes from the film American Psycho. The main character is a man named Patrick Bateman. In the first fifteen minutes you see vignettes of him having a fancy dinner with colleagues, paying his way into a swanky club, defending Jews from anti-Semitic remarks and taking us through his daily morning routine. In the end, while peeling a beauty mask from his face, he makes a startling declaration, “There is no real Patrick Bateman”. The mask itself symbolizes the different masks Bateman wears in his own life depending on society’s needs. He is a great example of the post-modern self. The movie takes place in the 1980’s on Wall Street and Bateman has been socially constructed to be every bit the commodity that society expects him to be. There is no real Patrick Bateman because every influence on his identity is materialistic and unreal. His life is so much based on the cold and the plastic that his identity is nothing more than extension of that. He is society’s coat hanger, so to speak, he wears the designer suits, drives the expensive car, lives in the high end condo and meticulously keeps up his appearance. Bateman’s identity is not fixed; it changes from scene to scene, just as the post-modern moves fluidly from identity to identity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)