As you all know, my ISP topic is about Facebook and relationships and can be explained in a lot more illustrative terms but I'm still in the beginning stages of research/of crafting my abstract so I'll just leave it at that for now.
In order to end up with a grade I deem appropriate, I've expended quite a lot of effort thus far in developing a theoretical framework in order to contextualize everything. And in the process of doing this, discovered that under the right circumstances and predisposed temperament, anthropology can be pretty depressing.
To give you an idea of where this is all coming from, currently I'm reading up on some things about emotional work, public performance of self and the idea of panopticon as developed by Hochschild, Goffman, and Bentham/Foucault (respectively, if for some reason you feel like following along in my research footsteps). All of these theories, if read by the right person (and even, I think, sometimes just naturally) are pretty much dismal and cynical. Hochschild focuses in on the commodification of emotions and ho they are recruited and sold as genuine when it really takes work to put on a sort of performance for customers (she focuses specifically on airline attendants specifically and how emotional labor is a large part of their job in the book The Managed Heart. And like most people who have flown in a plane before, it's not hard to conjure the picture of the flight attendant who looks like they've had that smile plastered on just a bit too long to know what Hochschild is getting at. Goffman, in what appears to be an extension of Hochschild focuses on the Presentation of Self in Everyday Life and how this presentation is akin to performers on a stage, accounting for the audience that will receive your action and adjusting how you act according to said audience (making the receiver of said action constantly wonder as to how genuine anything really is). And then Bentham and Foucault cover basically how everyone is watching everyone at all times and basically peer correcting those who deviate from cultural rules set up and followed by everyone else. (For the record, these are all super super dumbed down one-liners about what's going on and you all should definitely read the original works, they're actually very insightful.)
Anyway, in reading all of these things, I can't help but be a little depressed about it all. I guess the question I'm always left with after looking into subjects like identity formation and the ones above is: How much of who you are or what you do is determined and unwavering in the face of society (what I would call, genuine) and how much of who you are and what you do a product of unspoken rules of culture, knowledge that you're being observed, or the necessary emotional response in a given situation that you may not feel but that is called for nonetheless? In essence, how much of You can you claim is just you? You know what I mean? And then if one turns this question outward and questions other people, how much of how they treat you is genuine and how much is just necessary due to external factors? And then I suppose, how can you ever actually know someone? Or can you only ever think you know them and really just be seeing measured responses that are guided by cultural norms and social mores and aren't necessarily their primary self? Or is the primary (genuine) self necessarily intertwined and inescapable from the secondary (culturally bound, socially measured) self?
I just don't know. I'm also not sure you followed all of that but my stream of thought is sometimes just a little out of control. I was going to provide some quotations from the above scholars for you to peruse and aid you in understanding my predicament concerning human nature but upon looking at all of the things I'd underlined realized that everything I could write would feel a little out of context and not make much sense unless you had read the previous ten or so pages. Anyway, I was just sort of mulling all of this over today and in absence of a journal, all of you lovely people (whoever you are) are subjected to whatever posts I feel like writing even if they might be only half-developed and vaguely depressive.
I'm trying to find a way of interpreting these authors without the negativity that I picked up somehow but I really can't think of one. But then, I'm sort of already a cynic so reading things that call into question the genuine nature of people's selves and actions and emotions might not be the best thing to do. But it's rather interesting and I'm not sorry I've read it. Alas, I'm quite happy in spite of it all, but I think that might be due to a disconnect I have between my "anthropological self" and my "oh hey this is how I feel about this self". (If that makes any sense).
Well, I feel like this post is lacking a happy concluding paragraph but I'm lacking the motivation to write one/don't know how I could neatly wrap up things I'm only beginning to contemplate anyway.
I hope you've all had a lovely day/evening/life (while I'm hoping I might as well go big or go home).
Thoughts anyone?
Also, recently stumbled upon these articles, which seemed sort of relevant these days. Enjoy.
Is it Natural for Older Guys to Lust after Younger Women?
This one I enjoyed but I'm not sure about the whole "stereotypes form the science" in the case of men thing. I mean, yes, I can see how that could legitimately be a cause for concern but...well, I don't know...how do you feel about it? IN any case, it was a fairly refreshing read.
A Good Man's Guide to Catcalling
This was amazing in so many ways. Not to mention it's applicability to my life lately. Love. Love.
In order to end up with a grade I deem appropriate, I've expended quite a lot of effort thus far in developing a theoretical framework in order to contextualize everything. And in the process of doing this, discovered that under the right circumstances and predisposed temperament, anthropology can be pretty depressing.
To give you an idea of where this is all coming from, currently I'm reading up on some things about emotional work, public performance of self and the idea of panopticon as developed by Hochschild, Goffman, and Bentham/Foucault (respectively, if for some reason you feel like following along in my research footsteps). All of these theories, if read by the right person (and even, I think, sometimes just naturally) are pretty much dismal and cynical. Hochschild focuses in on the commodification of emotions and ho they are recruited and sold as genuine when it really takes work to put on a sort of performance for customers (she focuses specifically on airline attendants specifically and how emotional labor is a large part of their job in the book The Managed Heart. And like most people who have flown in a plane before, it's not hard to conjure the picture of the flight attendant who looks like they've had that smile plastered on just a bit too long to know what Hochschild is getting at. Goffman, in what appears to be an extension of Hochschild focuses on the Presentation of Self in Everyday Life and how this presentation is akin to performers on a stage, accounting for the audience that will receive your action and adjusting how you act according to said audience (making the receiver of said action constantly wonder as to how genuine anything really is). And then Bentham and Foucault cover basically how everyone is watching everyone at all times and basically peer correcting those who deviate from cultural rules set up and followed by everyone else. (For the record, these are all super super dumbed down one-liners about what's going on and you all should definitely read the original works, they're actually very insightful.)
Anyway, in reading all of these things, I can't help but be a little depressed about it all. I guess the question I'm always left with after looking into subjects like identity formation and the ones above is: How much of who you are or what you do is determined and unwavering in the face of society (what I would call, genuine) and how much of who you are and what you do a product of unspoken rules of culture, knowledge that you're being observed, or the necessary emotional response in a given situation that you may not feel but that is called for nonetheless? In essence, how much of You can you claim is just you? You know what I mean? And then if one turns this question outward and questions other people, how much of how they treat you is genuine and how much is just necessary due to external factors? And then I suppose, how can you ever actually know someone? Or can you only ever think you know them and really just be seeing measured responses that are guided by cultural norms and social mores and aren't necessarily their primary self? Or is the primary (genuine) self necessarily intertwined and inescapable from the secondary (culturally bound, socially measured) self?
I just don't know. I'm also not sure you followed all of that but my stream of thought is sometimes just a little out of control. I was going to provide some quotations from the above scholars for you to peruse and aid you in understanding my predicament concerning human nature but upon looking at all of the things I'd underlined realized that everything I could write would feel a little out of context and not make much sense unless you had read the previous ten or so pages. Anyway, I was just sort of mulling all of this over today and in absence of a journal, all of you lovely people (whoever you are) are subjected to whatever posts I feel like writing even if they might be only half-developed and vaguely depressive.
I'm trying to find a way of interpreting these authors without the negativity that I picked up somehow but I really can't think of one. But then, I'm sort of already a cynic so reading things that call into question the genuine nature of people's selves and actions and emotions might not be the best thing to do. But it's rather interesting and I'm not sorry I've read it. Alas, I'm quite happy in spite of it all, but I think that might be due to a disconnect I have between my "anthropological self" and my "oh hey this is how I feel about this self". (If that makes any sense).
Well, I feel like this post is lacking a happy concluding paragraph but I'm lacking the motivation to write one/don't know how I could neatly wrap up things I'm only beginning to contemplate anyway.
I hope you've all had a lovely day/evening/life (while I'm hoping I might as well go big or go home).
Thoughts anyone?
Also, recently stumbled upon these articles, which seemed sort of relevant these days. Enjoy.
Is it Natural for Older Guys to Lust after Younger Women?
This one I enjoyed but I'm not sure about the whole "stereotypes form the science" in the case of men thing. I mean, yes, I can see how that could legitimately be a cause for concern but...well, I don't know...how do you feel about it? IN any case, it was a fairly refreshing read.
A Good Man's Guide to Catcalling
This was amazing in so many ways. Not to mention it's applicability to my life lately. Love. Love.
0 comments:
Post a Comment