By DannyR
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
The following will focus on the social and environmental consequences of global food production and consumption trends, arguing that widespread reliance on convenience food, both for preparation within the home and for personal consumption away from home, has dire social and environmental consequences, including environmental degradation, loss of community, pervasive poor health from excessive consumption in developed nations and, perversely, widespread malnourishment and disease in developing nations. The essay first describes the historical shift from household self-sufficiency to supermarket shopping, the consumption of convenience foods and comfort-eating, outlining the consequences of this shift for individual health and the environment and noting that the social and environmental effects are often intertwined. We argue that the root of the problem is essentially social, and conclude that in order to rectify the environmental problem it is in fact necessary to address the social concerns.
‘Convenience food’ may be defined as “the domestic outsourcing of food planning, preparation and/or cooking” (Dixon et al., 2006, p.635). People in developed nations are growing and preparing their own food less frequently because packaged foods are seen to be more convenient (Thomas, 2006, p.4). Convenience foods are marketed as a way to overcome time shortages (Dixon et al., 2006, p.638). Americans spend almost half of their food dollars on meals outside the home (Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.172). We can make a distinction between the convenient food that is purchased for preparation in the home and that which is purchased for consumption outside the home. The former involves foods that are packaged for easy storage, preparation and consumption, whether the food item requires heating or cooking or not. The latter represents a broader category, including food that is purchased at restaurants, bakeries and cafes, but also individually wrapped single portions that may be purchased from ‘fast food’ establishments, small convenience outlets and grocery stores. Common to both categories, however, is the problem of the disposal of packaging materials after consumption. These materials vary from recyclable tins, glass jars and cardboard boxes and to more heavily processed packaging that meshes foil, paper and wax or plastic.
There has been a historical shift from people growing their own food and selling their surplus to a relatively smaller number of people producing and preparing foods to sell on the market, which has in turn led to expansion of the availability of convenience foods in the 20th Century, in restaurants, service stations, vending machines, cafes and more, but especially in fast-food restaurants (Dixon et al., 2006, p.637). This historical shift is described by Dixon et al. (2006, pp.634-645), who note that although conventional wisdom places its origins in European cities in the Middle-Ages with street vendors and continues that the trend became more deeply entrenched as the industrial revolution drew ever-greater numbers of people into the cities in pursuit of work, in fact there is a rich tradition of convenience foods the world over. Nevertheless, the shift has been observed within Western nations, and the ascendancy of the West has brought about a new and pervasive convenience food culture. The transition to this convenience food culture has been motivated largely by the time constraints imposed upon individuals by shifts in the nature of paid work, and by time and space limitations brought about by changes in housing due to increasing urbanisation and the trend toward fewer people owning their own properties.
The nature of work has gradually changed over the course of the 20th Century, largely as a result of globalisation and technological innovation. This had the effect of relocating the working class into positions within the ‘service sector,’ positions which are largely part-time or casual, increasing the hardship faced by the majority of workers, creating redundancies and increasing the demand for welfare assistance (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.296-297). More and more families needed a dual income to cope with expenses, and so increasingly women entered the job market (Labrum, 2000, pp.190-191). Women’s increased participation in the workforce has contributed to the increased popularity of convenience foods and the reliance on supermarkets; the weakening of the gendered division of labour in the home has meant that people have less time to grow and prepare their own food (Dixon et al., 2006, p.638). Supermarkets are ‘convenient’ because of the wide range of products available, easy parking, long opening hours and their ability to undercut competitors in prices (Scarpello et al., 2009, p.112).
Similarly, increasing urbanisation since the industrial revolution and suburbanisation since World War II with the accompanying problems of motorway gridlock, air and water pollution, and cramped living conditions has meant that people have less time and space with which to tend their own crops on which to subsist (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.40, 175-176). Even in rural settings, however, people obtain the bulk of their food from supermarkets (Scarpello et al., 2009, p.111), indicating that the expectations we have of the food we purchase have increased. The affluent in the Western world have come to expect convenience, taste, variety and the highest quality fresh foods, available all year round. These expectations have led to the transportation of foodstuffs across vast distances, often around the globe, and this combined with the increased awareness of food contamination in the 20th Century has led to an increase in food packaging.
Food that is transported great distances needs to be packaged to minimise nutrient loss and spoiling. Fresh foods that people buy in supermarkets are often nutritionally inferior, they have been transported great distances and are not at their best when purchased; they are also less nutritious than they once were because the way that we farm reduces genetic diversity, relies on pesticides and strips the land of its nutrients (Thomas, 2006, p.4). Packaging of foodstuffs has therefore assumed an added importance; Gvozdenovic et al. (1997, pp.529-536) note that appropriate packing prolongs a foodstuff’s shelf-life and ensures a high-quality product. They describe the optimum packaging for the transportation and long-term storage of foodstuffs as the collective or individual wrapping food items in inert atmosphere or a specially concocted mixture of gasses, sealed with the most appropriate combination of packaging materials for the particular foodstuff. The intention is to create a barrier between the food item and any contamination in the external world, but also to limit the movement of carbon dioxide, oxygen and nitrogen molecules to and from the product and thereby reduce spoiling. The barrier is almost invariably achieved through the employment of PET/PE plastics or multilayer high-barrier cling-foil, the latter being the most convenient for the preservation of foodstuffs.
Odunze et al. (2008, pp.114-117) note that convenient or packaged foods have a number of benefits for consumers, they save time, are easy to store, reduce food wastage and make the task of food preparation easier. The authors note that the pre-packaged, pre-priced goods available in supermarkets somewhat compensate for the reduced time that is available to women for queuing in stores and cooking breakfast meals as a result of increasing urbanisation. Using a surveys and interviews, the authors find that consumers prefer plastic food packaging to metal, glass or paper, particularly because of the ease of opening the packaging and the readability of nutritional information on such packaging.
The way we relate to food in the Western world has fundamentally changed. Food is quicker and easier to prepare than ever before, and as a result people are eating more frequently (Anand & Gray, 2009, p.183), eating larger servings (Dixon et al., 2006, p.635), and choosing “nutritionally inferior convenience foods” high in additives, salts, fats and sugars (Thomas, 2006, p.4). Alongside the growth of supermarkets and other providers of convenient foods for preparation in the home, another trend has emerged in the Western world. Increasingly, ever more refined ‘fast’ or ‘junk’ foods are being purchased and consumed; people are eating less food prepared in the home (Dixon et al., 2006, p.635). Total sugar additive consumption has gone up significantly since 1985 (Pollan, 2006, p.104), Americans now drink twice the amount of soda that they do water (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). In recent years fast-food restaurants have also encouraged customers to ‘super-size’ their meals, delivering even greater quantities of unnecessary fats, salts and sugars (Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.171). Leahy (1999, pp.52-76) argues that whereas once the individual’s sense of purpose and meaning was derived from the work they did, now to survive in Western societies such individuals must work at some remove from their product and as a result must derive that sense of fulfilment from the items they consume. Consumers in industrialised nations are thus ‘alienated workers’ who purchase luxuries as compensation or reward for work they derive little satisfaction from, sparing little thought for the consequences of their purchasing decisions.
Importantly, this trend towards consuming junk foods is not evenly distributed throughout Western populations but rather reflects the growing divisions in the West between rich and poor. People in lower-income socio-economic brackets and ethnic minorities are more likely to subsist on convenience foods and fast foods in particular as these are simply more affordable (Gittelsohn & Sharma, 2009, p.161; Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.162). It is also an issue of accessibility. Car ownership is not so prevalent in lower income brackets, making transportation of large quantities of foodstuffs from supermarkets difficult. Minority ethnic communities around the world have sometimes been ghettoized within cities or placed on reserves and consequently are often at some physical distance from food retailers that offer varied, healthful food alternatives (Gittelsohn & Sharma, 2009, p.164, McLennan et al., 2004, p.176). In sum, our purchasing decisions reflect our positioning within society. These purchasing decisions have social and environmental consequences, however, and it is to these that we now turn our attention.
Of the social consequences of Western patterns of consumption, let us first consider the global inequalities they create and sustain. Leahy (1999, pp.52-76) argues that to compete within an increasingly global market economy, the global capitalist class, those very few who own the means of production and are among the wealthiest persons in the developed nations, must base the production and supply of commodities such as food from places where labour and resources are cheapest, which is most commonly the developing world. In order to survive, the global poor, located mostly in those developing nations, must damage local ecological systems to make room for the production of cash crops or luxuries that the developed nations cannot provide themselves due to industrialisation and urbanisation.
Leahy (1999, pp.52-76). argues that because traditional, sustainable agricultural practices such as polyculture and companion planting are costly in terms of labour and time, they are increasingly giving way to unsustainable and ecologically damaging practices such as overgrazing, monoculture, and the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides as producers strive to be competitive. Leahy further describes the environmental and socio-economic impacts of outsourcing developed nations’ food supply, noting in particular the transition in developing nations from individuals producing sufficient food for local consumption to the production of largely luxury consumables for international trade, at the expense of local prosperity. The world’s poor have less protein to survive on, as fish stocks are being diverted to provide non-food commodities for the world’s rich, particularly animal food and oils and cosmetics (Sarin, 2003, pp.88-89).
Let us also consider the social consequences of Western patterns of consumption that are observable closer to home, beginning with the health of the individuals within Western societies. There are alarming obesity trends in the affluent western world, as many as 60% of adults in Australia are obese; this is of great concern because obesity is correlated with a number of chronic and debilitating conditions, including adult-onset diabetes, cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal problems and cancer (Dixon et al., 2006, p.634). Other health risks associated with obesity include high cholesterol, high blood pressure and asthma (Goldberg & Gunasti, 2007, p.162) as well as sleep apnoea, incontinence, and more seriously a shortened lifespan and even dementia (Anand & Gray, 2009, pp.182-183).
High soda consumption, particularly, is largely responsible for childhood and adult obesity and adult-onset diabetes (Herro, 2007). The substitution of soda for milk and other healthy alternatives contributes to the prevalence of obesity in a population and causes dietary deficiencies; particularly of calcium, causing osteoporosis and tooth decay, especially as soda is generally consumed between meals and so leaves residues in the mouth for longer (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). There are also distressing psychological effects of obesity for those affected (Dixon et al., 2006, p.634). In fact, the increasing prevalence of a number of psychological disorders and mental health problems, including depression and ADHD, can be attributed to poor nutrition, while other disorders that are more or less evenly distributed worldwide, such as schizophrenia, are aggravated by diets high in fats and sugars (Thomas, 2006, p.4).
Dixon et al. (2006, pp.634-645) describe what they term the ‘obesogenic environment;’ this being “the surroundings, opportunities and conditions of life [which] promote obesity in individuals and populations.” They identify the ready availability of convenience foods as a significant factor in these trends, combined with the high energy-density of such foods and beverages and the aggressive and pervasive marketing of these products. Other factors include the normalisation of individual consumption in isolation and the reduction of traditional communal consumption, the use of food as a psychological balm for loneliness, depression and low self-esteem, and the institution of ‘round-the-clock’ grazing patterns in place of regular meal times. Consumption, the authors note, has become “disembedded” from social conventions, becoming dictated by market forces rather than community norms.
Furthermore, the reliance on convenience food results in people losing the capacity to plan and prepare their own meals, losing their understanding of the nutritional properties of the foods eaten, and losing control over serving sizes. As we have already noted, it is primarily the less affluent in Western societies who are most likely to rely on junk foods for their subsistence, given the cost-effectiveness of doing so in an increasingly globalised, technologically-driven and poverty-creating society. The poor are therefore at most risk of the ill-health effects of such subsistence.
The biggest risk associated with convenience food culture, however, affects both rich and poor alike. 200 million tons of synthetic plastics are produced annually, and 12 million tons goes into packaging for foodstuffs (Rhim & Ng, 2007, p.411). Petrochemical-based food packaging materials do not degrade easily in the environment and constitute a significant risk to human health, animal life and the environment (Odunze et al., 2008, pp.114-117). Convenience food culture encourages the manufacture of packaging products that persist for many hundreds of years, bleeding toxic chemicals into soils and waterways, choking natural habitats and posing a significant risk to wildlife. Supermarkets are largely responsible for the excessive distribution of plastic shopping bags, while junk foods and sodas are excessively packaged and their disposal is equally problematic (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). The packaging of convenience foods often cannot be broken down easily and is left to accumulate in landfill. Much of it is merely discarded without thought and ends up in the environment, killing fish and animals.
To illustrate; marine debris, being any processed or manufactured product that enters the world’s oceans and waterways, is one of the biggest environmental problems yet to be properly addressed, and a significant percentage of such debris is comprised of food, beverage and tobacco packaging (Sheavly & Register, 2007, pp.301-302, 304). Humans have been using the ocean as a dumping ground for centuries (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.301), which perhaps did not constitute a significant problem when the human population was smaller and when such litter was overwhelmingly organic and biodegradable. But the nature of this waste has changed as humans have come to rely increasingly on synthetic materials, particularly in food packaging, resulting in solid waste that may persists in the environment for hundreds or even thousands of years. Non-biodegradable, convenience food items such as plastic soda bottles, cling film and polystyrene containers are now common features of many rivers, lakes and estuaries. When discarded into the ocean, these items can travel great distances on currents, being by their very nature buoyant and hardy, thus posing risks to far greater numbers of marine life and ecosystems than those in the locale of their initial disposal (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.301). Although much of this debris floats, it affects wildlife and ecosystems below the surface as well (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). Entanglement poses major risks for marine wildlife. Sheavly and Register (2007, pp.302-303) describe some of these risks: marine organisms may be strangled or drowned by human waste materials, or their mobility may become impaired by an injury incurred through contact with such materials, meaning that they cannot pursue prey or escape from predators. Debris may become caught in their mouths, meaning that they are unable to eat and so starve to death.
Ingestion is another significant concern; a number of human waste items may resemble prey species for marine organisms. Sheavly and Register (2007, p.303) make particular note of plastic shopping bags, which are sometimes mistaken for jellyfish by turtles and which then become lodged in the turtles’ digestive tracts causing death. In addition to posing dangers to individual organisms, marine debris threatens entire ecosystems. Where floating marine debris accumulates, it can cause serious ecological disruption by reducing the sunlight that penetrates the water and thus impacting the local food chain; furthermore, floating marine debris can be a means of transport for species across oceans, resulting in new species being introduced to habitats which may then decimate local populations (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.303).
Sheavly and Register (2007, p.302) stress that approximately eighty percent of all marine debris was discarded not in the oceans, but on land; food wrappings and other waste materials that are poorly disposed of eventually find their way into rivers and streams by means of sewers and storm-drains or are transported there by wind and rain, and once again we find that dense urban populations are the worst offenders (Sheavly& Register, 2007, p.302). Public littering is a major contributor to land-based marine debris, and much of this is plastic food wrapping, a significant portion of this waste is therefore a direct result of the prevailing convenience food culture (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). Little research has been done on the eventual fate of synthetic micro-fibres that enter marine ecosystems or on the effects on aquatic habitats and ecosystems of the accumulation and dispersion of toxins found in plastics (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.303), and yet as findings on their impact on human health illustrate, it is unlikely that the effects are benign.
Human health is affected by marine debris, there is evidence that contact with water contaminated by discarded packaging items often leads to outbreaks of illnesses such as cholera, typhoid, hepatitis, diarrhoea and dysentery (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). More insidious still, the toxic chemicals and synthetic micro-fibres in such items find their way into the marine food chain, and are eventually ingested by humans through fisheries. There is some evidence that coming into contact with these petrochemicals has negative effects on human health. Once in the human body, these synthetic particles and toxic chemicals damage the internal organs, resulting in poor health. It is also plausible that certain congenital birth defects may be attributable to parental exposure to petrochemicals. For example, phthalate esters found in much plastic packaging have been demonstrated to be harmful to the reproductive system of the human male, deforming the reproductive tract in developing males and inhibiting testosterone production (Benson, 2009).
As with marine wildlife, so with humans; the effects of environmental pollution affect not just individuals, but entire communities. In addition to its detrimental effect on ecosystems, marine debris also has aesthetic and economic impacts, as many coastal communities depend on tourism for income (Sheavly & Register, 2007, p.302). The example of marine debris serves to illustrate that the adverse environmental and social consequences of convenience food culture are interlinked, consumer choices have environmental costs. It is hardly unreasonable to suppose that understandings of such environmental and human interdependence apply in most if not all other contexts. And yet it seems that our consumer lifestyles and reliance on convenient food are deeply entrenched, perhaps too deeply to amend? Certainly Leahy (1999, pp.52-76) would seem to suggest that the consumption of food for comfort and entertainment is an inevitable aspect of an alienating economic system.
Rhim (2007, pp.691-709) notes, however, that the negative environmental effects of non-biodegradable petrochemical-based plastic packaging materials and consumer's increasing demand for high quality food products have not gone unnoticed, and that biodegradable, renewable alternatives are being sought. Rhim notes that such efforts have been faced with “major limitations” however, in that the natural polymer-based packaging materials that have been developed as an alternative have “inherent shortcomings,” such as comparatively poor durability, resilience and water resistance. Simply put, they fail to protect and preserve foodstuffs to the standard expected by consumers. Advances are being made, however; industrial interest in the use of natural biopolymers in food packaging has been somewhat rekindled by the recent development of nanocomposite technologies. Rhim (2007, pp.691-709) notes that natural biopolymer-layered silicate nanocomposites go some way to eliminating the aforementioned packaging limitations, exhibiting increased mechanical strength, decreased gas permeability, and increased water resistance. These biodegradable alternatives to conventional plastic packaging materials may go some way to eliminating the deleterious effects of the accumulation of toxic packaging materials in delicate ecosystems.
What then is to be done? Some favour a legislative approach; one proposed solution to the problem of consumers making poor choices is increased taxation of junk food and soda producers, and the funnelling of the revenue from these taxes into countering the advertising of their products, or to ban them from advertising their products (Assadorian, 2002, pp.140-141). Anand and Gray (2009, pp.186-189) call for the creation of a deliberative economy, in which expert knowledge undergirds government intervention in providing an optimal range of choices for consumers. Others, recognising the poor quality of fresh foods that have been transported internationally and the global inequalities that such economic activity perpetuates, now advocate buying only local and organic produce, correctly surmising that ethical purchasing can help reduce the environmental impact of current patterns of food production. Yet all these approaches fail to address the underlying inequalities that shape consumer choices, the fact remains that healthier, organic foods tend to be more expensive and are thus out of the reach of those who rely most on convenient food, the urban poor.
Solutions are also proposed for the remedying of specific aspects of the issue, such as the influx of packaging wastes into the environment and the poor nutritional quality and ill-health effects of convenience foods, but these also fail in that they do not address more fundamental causative patterns of behaviour. To illustrate, for the reduction of marine debris, Sheavly and Register (2007, pp.304-305) advocate greater education of consumers as to the long-term effects of littering, noting that each piece of litter represents one individual’s poor waste-disposal decision, and thus “In a way, it can be said that every piece of debris has human fingerprints on it”. But is this enough? Would it not rather be preferable to challenge consumers’ harmful convenience-food lifestyles? Dixon et al. (2006) describe the increasing trend towards functional, pharmaceutically altered foods, or ‘phoods’ in reaction to the increasing recognition of the poor health and nutritional qualities of convenience foods, but are sceptical of its effectiveness because nothing is being done to challenge society’s overwhelming reliance on convenience foods.
A growing number of individuals now advocate the creation of alternative economies and a reliance on community gardens and ‘freeganism’ or ‘dumpster-diving,’ the eating of expired but good quality food that is discarded daily by supermarkets. Such ‘radical’ measures may succeed in challenging the assumptions that many in Western societies have about food quality, and are to be applauded. Certainly in urban environments there may be few other alternatives to convenience food culture. Significant and lasting change is only likely to come about, however, through widespread changes to individual eating habits, through individuals, families and communities growing as much of their own food as possible and coming to understand and appreciate their own dependence upon their environment. Goldberg & Gunasti (2007, p.163) note that the taking of communal and family meals together promotes healthier attitudes towards food, and indeed the near-complete loss of theses practices over the past fifty years has undoubtedly contributed greatly to the maladaptive individual eating habits described above, and to the decline of socially and environmentally healthy families and communities. We must reverse the trend noted by Dixon et al. (2006, pp.634-645) and reconnect the act of eating with social conventions and interactions, and in so doing we may regain greater quality of life and preserve the environment on which we depend for our very existence.
To conclude, as illustrated by the example of marine debris, the health of human individuals and communities is affected by the health of the environment in which it is embedded; human beings do not exist in isolation from the natural world, and thus to remedy man-made environmental problems we must address their underlying social causes. This essay has demonstrated that prevailing Western patterns of convenience food consumption, divorced as they are from both production cycles and from social context, are a significant causative factor in the erosion of both human health and natural environments. Greater awareness and appreciation is needed of the interconnectedness of human life and the natural world, and of the value of social integration.
References
Anand, P. & Gray, A. (2009). Obesity as market failure: Could a ‘deliberative economy’ overcome the problems of paternalism? KYKLOS, 62(2), 182–190.
Assadorian, E. (2002). Soda consumption grows. Vital Signs 2002, pp. 140-141. Worldwatch.
Benson, R. (2009). Hazard to the developing male reproductive system from cumulative exposure to phthalate esters – dibutyl phthalate, diisobutyl phthalate, butylbenzyl phthalate, diethylhexyl phthalate, dipentyl phthalate, and diisononyl phthalate. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 53, 90-101.
Dixon, J. M., Hinde, S. J. & Banwell, C. L. (2006). Obesity, convenience and “phood.” British Food Journal, 108(8), pp. 634-645.
Gittelsohn, J. & Sharma, S. (2009). Physical, consumer, and social aspects of measuring the food environment among diverse low-income populations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2009, 36(4S), pp.161-165.
Goldberg, M. E. & Gunasti, K. (2007). Creating an environment in which youths are encouraged to eat a healthier diet. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(2), 162-181.
Gvozdenovic, J., Lazic, V. & Curakovic, M. (1997). New trends in fresh vegetable packing. First Balkan symposium on vegetables and potatoes, Vols. I & II, 1(462), 29-536.
Herro, A. (2007). Can “Dumping Soda” mitigate global obesity trends? Worldwatch Institute. Retrieved 25th May 2009 from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5492
Labrum, B. (2000). Persistent needs and expanding desires: Pakeha families and
state welfare in the years of prosperity. In B. Dalley and B. Labrum (Eds.). Fragments: New Zealand social and cultural history (pp.188-210). Auckland: Auckland University Press.
Leahy, T. (1999). Food and the environment. In J. Germov & L. Williams (Eds.), A sociology of food and nutrition: The social appetite, (pp.52-76). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
McLennan, G., Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Family Life. Exploring Society:
Sociology for New Zealand students (2nd Ed.), Pearson Education: New Zealand, pp. 77-95.
Odunze, I. I., Mohammed, A. Z., Ike, E., Onuigbo, P.E. & Shuaibu-Imodagbe, E.M. (2008). Packaged foods, consumption pattern and impact on the environment in Zaria, Nigeria. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 6(3-4), 114-117.
Pollan, M. (2006). The omnivore’s dilemma: A natural history of four meals. New York: The Penguin Press.
Rhim, J. (2007). Potential use of biopolymer-based nanocomposite films in food
packaging applications. Food science and biotechnology, 16(5), 691-709.
Rhim, J. & Ng, P. K. W. (2007). Natural biopolymer-based nanocomposite films for packaging applications. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 47(4), 411-433.
Sarin, R. (2003). Rich-poor divide growing. Vital Signs 2003, pp.88-89. Retrieved 23rd May 2009 from www.worldwatch.org/brain/media/pdf/pubs/vs/2003_rich-poor.pdf
Scarpello, T., Poland, F., Lambert, N. & Wakeman, T. (2009). A qualitative study
of the food-related experiences of rural village shop customers. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 22, 108–115.
Sheavly, S. B. & Register, K. M. (2007). Marine Debris & Plastics: Environmental
Concerns, Sources, Impacts and Solutions. J Polym Environ, 15, 301–305.
Thomas, P. (2006). Feeding minds. The Ecologist 6(2), p.28. Retrieved 24th May 2009 from http://www.theecologist.org/pages/archive_detail.asp?content_id=587
Monday, June 1, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Dear John... (Stolen from Cracker Lilo's Front Porch)
Dear John,
I've decided our relationship is just not working. This is not because we are both boys; I find you very dull. Though I do like show tunes, I do have issues with "Cats". I feel my dislike of said musical has nothing to do with my orientation. Enclosed are reviews from many gay critics who also found this play boring.
Second, the girl I am now dating doesn't shave and could likely beat you in a fight. I feel my relationship with her does not make me any less queer. In fact, the strap-on we bought online is much better endowed than you are (although I am not making ANY judgments on size). I just mean to say she "gets me" better than you, and I am happier now.
Just because I am now with a female, this does not mean that I want to be purged from the LGbt mailing list. We plan to attend every marriage rally we can make. I may even go back to that bar we met at someday if and when our strap-on dies. When I go there (if it is still there and has not become a hipster bar), I will not be going as a closeted straight man, but as a bisexual. As such, I will not be taking my rainbow flag from the bumper of my car but may have to cover my yellow equal sign if space is needed.
In closing, I hope that our failed relationship will not lead to anger at all bisexual men. Since you dated me, there may be part of your makeup that needs to fall in love with a bi guy. Please don't hold this against all bisexual males as I'm sure at least one of us thinks "Cats" is a great work.
I've decided our relationship is just not working. This is not because we are both boys; I find you very dull. Though I do like show tunes, I do have issues with "Cats". I feel my dislike of said musical has nothing to do with my orientation. Enclosed are reviews from many gay critics who also found this play boring.
Second, the girl I am now dating doesn't shave and could likely beat you in a fight. I feel my relationship with her does not make me any less queer. In fact, the strap-on we bought online is much better endowed than you are (although I am not making ANY judgments on size). I just mean to say she "gets me" better than you, and I am happier now.
Just because I am now with a female, this does not mean that I want to be purged from the LGbt mailing list. We plan to attend every marriage rally we can make. I may even go back to that bar we met at someday if and when our strap-on dies. When I go there (if it is still there and has not become a hipster bar), I will not be going as a closeted straight man, but as a bisexual. As such, I will not be taking my rainbow flag from the bumper of my car but may have to cover my yellow equal sign if space is needed.
In closing, I hope that our failed relationship will not lead to anger at all bisexual men. Since you dated me, there may be part of your makeup that needs to fall in love with a bi guy. Please don't hold this against all bisexual males as I'm sure at least one of us thinks "Cats" is a great work.
"It's Like They Want You To Get Fat" - Williams & Potter, 1999
- by DannyR
Throughout her life a woman in modern, westernised society is externally pressured to conform to a pervasive societal ideal of thinness that emphasises her sexual availability to men. Yet when she becomes pregnant she is expected to easily adjust to a complete reversal those expectations and alter her behaviour.
Pregnant women are frequently no longer perceived as sexual persons, and often feel undesirable and unattractive due to the disparity between the societal ideal of attractive and their changed bodies. A pregnant woman’s sexuality and approval of her own body are deemed less important than her role as ‘baby factory’ and thus she is expected to become heavier, to conform to a maternal ideal with accompanying bodily changes. She herself participates in this reconstruction of her body, to the extent that she feels and responds to these pressures. For example some women, and especially younger women on whom there is more pressure to conform to societal expectations of attractiveness, may feel guilt about their weight gain and worry about the difficulty of losing it post-partum, while others see the changes as significant of their changed role, and consign their sexual desirability to the past.
The role of the expectant mother entails a changed relationship with food to ensure the foetus is well nourished. Eating is no longer for the mother’s pleasure or sustenance but instead considered ‘part of your job’. They are criticised for making personal choices to eat unhealthy food – the implication being that ‘your body isn’t just yours now!’ The medicalisation of pregnancy extends the expectation of the doctor’s control over childbirth back into the duration of the pregnancy, removing from women even a sense of control over their own pregnancy.
A woman’s expectations of her own body and the expectations of those around her toward that body are socially constructed, as evidenced by the vastly different standards for feminine attractiveness across cultures and across time. That pregnancy has become medicalised is evidenced by the results of qualitative research, women report feeling measured through pregnancy against prescribed weight gains as though weight gain were the most important predictor of pregnancy outcome. Many worry that they are ‘bad mothers’ if they are ‘not doing it right’.
This topic illuminates the sociological themes of Differences and Divisions; women are subjected to more pressure to conform to ideals of weight than are men, and are thus defined in terms of roles or functions. To some extent this also demonstrates the interaction of the Social and the Personal, as many women internalise this categorisation and come to define themselves in relation to their food and weight.
References
Williams, L. & Potter, J. (1999). ‘“It’s like they want you to get fat”: Social reconstruction of women’s bodies during pregnancy.’ In J Germov & L Williams (Eds.), A Sociology of Food and Nutrition: The Social Appetite, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Throughout her life a woman in modern, westernised society is externally pressured to conform to a pervasive societal ideal of thinness that emphasises her sexual availability to men. Yet when she becomes pregnant she is expected to easily adjust to a complete reversal those expectations and alter her behaviour.
Pregnant women are frequently no longer perceived as sexual persons, and often feel undesirable and unattractive due to the disparity between the societal ideal of attractive and their changed bodies. A pregnant woman’s sexuality and approval of her own body are deemed less important than her role as ‘baby factory’ and thus she is expected to become heavier, to conform to a maternal ideal with accompanying bodily changes. She herself participates in this reconstruction of her body, to the extent that she feels and responds to these pressures. For example some women, and especially younger women on whom there is more pressure to conform to societal expectations of attractiveness, may feel guilt about their weight gain and worry about the difficulty of losing it post-partum, while others see the changes as significant of their changed role, and consign their sexual desirability to the past.
The role of the expectant mother entails a changed relationship with food to ensure the foetus is well nourished. Eating is no longer for the mother’s pleasure or sustenance but instead considered ‘part of your job’. They are criticised for making personal choices to eat unhealthy food – the implication being that ‘your body isn’t just yours now!’ The medicalisation of pregnancy extends the expectation of the doctor’s control over childbirth back into the duration of the pregnancy, removing from women even a sense of control over their own pregnancy.
A woman’s expectations of her own body and the expectations of those around her toward that body are socially constructed, as evidenced by the vastly different standards for feminine attractiveness across cultures and across time. That pregnancy has become medicalised is evidenced by the results of qualitative research, women report feeling measured through pregnancy against prescribed weight gains as though weight gain were the most important predictor of pregnancy outcome. Many worry that they are ‘bad mothers’ if they are ‘not doing it right’.
This topic illuminates the sociological themes of Differences and Divisions; women are subjected to more pressure to conform to ideals of weight than are men, and are thus defined in terms of roles or functions. To some extent this also demonstrates the interaction of the Social and the Personal, as many women internalise this categorisation and come to define themselves in relation to their food and weight.
References
Williams, L. & Potter, J. (1999). ‘“It’s like they want you to get fat”: Social reconstruction of women’s bodies during pregnancy.’ In J Germov & L Williams (Eds.), A Sociology of Food and Nutrition: The Social Appetite, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Just Off The Top Of My Head...
Here's an email I sent through to a mate to help her with her Women's Studies assignment...
Compulsory or institutionalised heterosexuality is a set of beliefs that were a central feature of modern societies in the 20th Century; a set of beliefs about the specific roles, behaviours and relationships that are appropriate for the sexes. It's virtualy synonymous with the nuclear family, and somewhat outdated now, but it had a huge effect on western societies, and it continues to hold some sway in the beliefs of a significant proportion of the population.
Institutionalised heterosexuality requires men to be unemotional, rational, good at all things practical, mechanical, mathematical and logical. They are expected to find full-time paid employment in a trade and to use their earnings from that employment to provide for their families, a role commonly referred to as the 'breadwinner.' In many societies, and in Aotearoa New Zealand particularly, men are also expected to enjoy sports, to dislike artistic and cultural pursuits, to have a more sexual focus in intimate relationships and a tendency towards promiscuity, and to be the head of the household.
Women, in contrast, are expected to be emotional, irrational, good at caring, communicating, and maintaining relationships, poor at practical and financial pursuits. It is expected that they will want to have children and spend their time in the home, that they are naturally suited to domestic and child-care tasks and that therefore the home is the most appropriate place for them. They are expected to enjoy shopping, especially for household appliances and furnishings, and to enjoy motherhood. Artistic and cultural pursuits are more appropriate for women than for men, they are expected to dislike or 'put up with' sex, to be more interested in the romantic aspects of relationships and inherently monogamous, and to be obedient and supportive to their spouse.
Institutionalised heterosexuality prescribed marriage as the only appropriate relationship between men and women, with minimal physical intimacy prior to marriage, and the expectation that once married, a man and a woman would remain together for the rest of their lives in a monogamous union. They are expected to own their own home and raise children together.
And that's a really important aspect - they are expected to have children, and to enjoy motherhood. Women who choose not to have children or who cannot have children are considered LESS womanly than those who can and do. Similarly, women who are good with practical skills or sports are considered overly masculine, and it's considered indecent for women to enjoy sex and be anything other than monogamous.
Times have changed somewhat, there is no longer quite the same expectation that relationships will last for life or that the partners will be married, and with the changing nature of paid work over the past fifty years and more equal rights, women are employed to some extent more often than not. Serial monogamy has replaced absolute monogamy. But women are STILL expected to pursue a romantic relationship with a man who they expect to be their lifelong partner, and to give up or reduce their participation in paid employment in order to become mothers. Women are still expected to be responsible for the majority of household labour, to be the primary caregiver for the children and to enjoy motherhood without being paid for it.
Institutionalised or compulsory heterosexuality refers to a SPECIFIC model of heterosexuality that places women in a position of dependence on men, it is institutional because it is expected, and normalised. Anything that deviates from this model is considered immoral, pathological, dysfunctional, less than optimal.
Compulsory or institutionalised heterosexuality is a set of beliefs that were a central feature of modern societies in the 20th Century; a set of beliefs about the specific roles, behaviours and relationships that are appropriate for the sexes. It's virtualy synonymous with the nuclear family, and somewhat outdated now, but it had a huge effect on western societies, and it continues to hold some sway in the beliefs of a significant proportion of the population.
Institutionalised heterosexuality requires men to be unemotional, rational, good at all things practical, mechanical, mathematical and logical. They are expected to find full-time paid employment in a trade and to use their earnings from that employment to provide for their families, a role commonly referred to as the 'breadwinner.' In many societies, and in Aotearoa New Zealand particularly, men are also expected to enjoy sports, to dislike artistic and cultural pursuits, to have a more sexual focus in intimate relationships and a tendency towards promiscuity, and to be the head of the household.
Women, in contrast, are expected to be emotional, irrational, good at caring, communicating, and maintaining relationships, poor at practical and financial pursuits. It is expected that they will want to have children and spend their time in the home, that they are naturally suited to domestic and child-care tasks and that therefore the home is the most appropriate place for them. They are expected to enjoy shopping, especially for household appliances and furnishings, and to enjoy motherhood. Artistic and cultural pursuits are more appropriate for women than for men, they are expected to dislike or 'put up with' sex, to be more interested in the romantic aspects of relationships and inherently monogamous, and to be obedient and supportive to their spouse.
Institutionalised heterosexuality prescribed marriage as the only appropriate relationship between men and women, with minimal physical intimacy prior to marriage, and the expectation that once married, a man and a woman would remain together for the rest of their lives in a monogamous union. They are expected to own their own home and raise children together.
And that's a really important aspect - they are expected to have children, and to enjoy motherhood. Women who choose not to have children or who cannot have children are considered LESS womanly than those who can and do. Similarly, women who are good with practical skills or sports are considered overly masculine, and it's considered indecent for women to enjoy sex and be anything other than monogamous.
Times have changed somewhat, there is no longer quite the same expectation that relationships will last for life or that the partners will be married, and with the changing nature of paid work over the past fifty years and more equal rights, women are employed to some extent more often than not. Serial monogamy has replaced absolute monogamy. But women are STILL expected to pursue a romantic relationship with a man who they expect to be their lifelong partner, and to give up or reduce their participation in paid employment in order to become mothers. Women are still expected to be responsible for the majority of household labour, to be the primary caregiver for the children and to enjoy motherhood without being paid for it.
Institutionalised or compulsory heterosexuality refers to a SPECIFIC model of heterosexuality that places women in a position of dependence on men, it is institutional because it is expected, and normalised. Anything that deviates from this model is considered immoral, pathological, dysfunctional, less than optimal.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Gangsta Stylez
I spent several hours last night at the Student Association's 'Casino Royale' evening, held on campus, where it seemed half the student population showed up to gamble for a chance to take home a rather posh scooter, a couch, a bunch of food and wine baskets and yes, even a packet of instant noodles.
I dragged some of my 'mos along, and my token straight buddy Yannick, we dressed up a bit and mozied along at 7pm with our tickets, expecting maybe 20 people to show up. How wrong we were.
The evening was a great success, there were literally HUNDREDS of students there, all dressed to the nines and groomed to within an inch of their lives. The student Asssociation got in an actual casino company to decorate, set up and (wo)man the tables, there were more games laid out than I know the names of, they got in a professional piano player and staffed the bar with hotties.
I wasn't especially interested in actually playing anything, I was basically just there for the booze and the socialising, so I got my chips or tokens or whatever the hell they're called and divvied them up between my mates, and set off to work the room.
I caught up with a heaps of people I know and like, watched folks win terrifically and lose impressively, ate a crap-load of nibbles and got wasted on something called an 'Aston Martin' which as near as I can make out was almost entirely tequila. It was great! I also quite enjoyed giving my 'millions' away to all and sundry like I didn't give a damn, made me feel rich and powerful. Muahahahahahahaha!!
Oddly, when I was finally convinced to have a spin myself at the end of the night, I was pretty lucky. I shoulda maybe taken it seriously from the start, I coulda been rich for real!!
;)
Monday, May 25, 2009
Oh my GOD I cannot be bovered wiv this
BEWARE: RANT FOLLOWS.
People. GRRR!!!
You have one good friend complaining because she hasn't had any submissions for her student newspaper agony aunt column, so you take something from your life, spin it out a bit, indulge in a bit of hyperbole for a laff, make sure no names are named and send it in, then forget all about it.
Some weeks later you get another friend bawling her eyes out because you wrote about her (even though you didn't use her name or sign it with your own name), she takes what she reads in a student newspaper way too seriously - a student newspaper that is full of tongue-in-cheek humour - and she's completely blown it out of proportion and is calling you horrible, petty and immature. Even though she wasn't mentioned explicitly she say's it's obvious it's about her, when after a little probing it becomes apparent that somebody else told her it was about her.
At first she won't even agree to talk to you about it in person but attacks you by text, you apologise sincerely, saying that you're very sorry that she's upset but that that was never the intention and suggesting that perhaps she's taking it a little too seriously. It is, after all, just a trashy student paper and it was written somewhat humourously. She agrees to meet with you in a few days time to talk it over, and then her Significant Other gets stuck in. CHRIST!!
Then you get home and find out that she's been bawling her eyes out to your flatmate in your absence, and he seems to be actually ENJOYING this!! You determine that you have to find out exactly what happened by speaking to the editor of the paper, who knows the offended party personally (though not all that well, or so you think), and your friend who writes the agony aunt column (who she doesn't really know at all, to the best of your knowledge), to see if you can work out who's been sh*t-stirring. You then decide that you're no longer comfortable in your flat and should start seriously thinking about moving out ASAP.
It's enough to make you give up writing for trashy student papers.
It's enough to make you give up on people.
>:(
People. GRRR!!!
You have one good friend complaining because she hasn't had any submissions for her student newspaper agony aunt column, so you take something from your life, spin it out a bit, indulge in a bit of hyperbole for a laff, make sure no names are named and send it in, then forget all about it.
Some weeks later you get another friend bawling her eyes out because you wrote about her (even though you didn't use her name or sign it with your own name), she takes what she reads in a student newspaper way too seriously - a student newspaper that is full of tongue-in-cheek humour - and she's completely blown it out of proportion and is calling you horrible, petty and immature. Even though she wasn't mentioned explicitly she say's it's obvious it's about her, when after a little probing it becomes apparent that somebody else told her it was about her.
At first she won't even agree to talk to you about it in person but attacks you by text, you apologise sincerely, saying that you're very sorry that she's upset but that that was never the intention and suggesting that perhaps she's taking it a little too seriously. It is, after all, just a trashy student paper and it was written somewhat humourously. She agrees to meet with you in a few days time to talk it over, and then her Significant Other gets stuck in. CHRIST!!
Then you get home and find out that she's been bawling her eyes out to your flatmate in your absence, and he seems to be actually ENJOYING this!! You determine that you have to find out exactly what happened by speaking to the editor of the paper, who knows the offended party personally (though not all that well, or so you think), and your friend who writes the agony aunt column (who she doesn't really know at all, to the best of your knowledge), to see if you can work out who's been sh*t-stirring. You then decide that you're no longer comfortable in your flat and should start seriously thinking about moving out ASAP.
It's enough to make you give up writing for trashy student papers.
It's enough to make you give up on people.
>:(
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Ok, Ok, So I'm A Geek...
A bunch of LOTR nerds got together not too long ago to film one of the segments of the story's narrative that was 'missing' from Peter Jackson's movie trilogy. It's pretty well done, considering the small budget and the fact that these aren't the actors we're all familiar with... check it out at
http://www.thehuntforgollum.com/player_film-youtube.htm
http://www.thehuntforgollum.com/player_film-youtube.htm
The Role of Women in Early Christianity
by DannyR
Anyone who investigates women in the New Testament gets a dusty answer: some names are mentioned, and in a few cases a little more than that. The authors of the biblical writings have no interest in biographies; as men, moreover, they are more interested in their own history (Heine, 1986:55).
All the many contradictory positions on the place of women within Christianity have their foundations in the Bible, and much of the interpretive work that shaped these positions were based on texts written in the first four centuries C.E. (Drury, 1994:31). In seeking to understand the roles of women in the Christian tradition, it is first necessary to uncover their origins in the early Church and the social contexts of its beginnings. In the following, ‘women’s roles’ will refer to those duties performed by, but not necessarily those exclusive to women, while ‘early Christianity’ encompasses the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the subsequent era of Pauline theology and the Pastoral Epistles, and finally the era of Gnosticism (Heine, 1986:11).
This essay will trace the evolution of women’s roles through this early period of Christian history, paying particular attention to the Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions against which Christianity initially was a reaction, demonstrating that despite its revolutionary origins, the Early Church eventually followed its forbears in relegating women to subservient roles.
Jesus of Nazareth led one of a number of ‘renewal movements’ within Judaism that was condemned as heretical by the religious authorities of the time (Heine, 1986:55). The first Christian women were, like their male counterparts, called by Jesus to leave their families and follow him in his ministry. Heine (1986:61) notes that ‘following’ in all Biblical texts connotes “complete participation in the conviction and activity of the travelling preachers,” thus, women became disciples of Jesus to engage in religious practice from which they had been excluded under Jewish law (Swidler, 1971:180). Theirs was a life of homelessness, dependent for their survival on the gifts they received from those they preached to and from their families, and such wealth as they brought with them, which was shared. Three women are named among these followers – Mary Magdalene, Susanna and Johanna – and “it is quite in keeping with the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers that these women… should have supported the Jesus group by giving them provisions” (Heine, 1986:59-60).
Women’s practice in this primordial Christianity stood in stark contrast to their roles in Jewish society of the time, in which they were decidedly inferior – along with slaves and children, women were considered unfit to testify in legal proceedings, and were not permitted to study the Torah, read aloud in the synagogues or lead the assembly in any manner (Swidler, 1971:178). Women held no responsibilities of any significance at prayer and were restricted to the outer court of the temple at Jerusalem, and rabbinical teachings discouraged their leaving the house (except to visit the synagogue) and sought to limit women to particular ‘female areas’ of the home (Swidler, 1971:178-179). Women’s roles were thus reduced to the bearing and raising of children, and further, Jewish women were always answerable to a man, whether her father or husband, or “if a widow, the dead husband’s brother” (Swidler, 1971:178) A Jew could have multiple wives, a Jewess only one husband, she could be divorced with ease by her husband, but could not herself initiate separation (Swidler, 1971:178).
Contempt for women was by no means restricted to Judaism. While Rabbis thanked God that they were not born gentile, female or ‘ignorant’ (Swidler, 1971:178), Hellenistic men gave thanks that they were born neither animal, nor woman, nor barbarian, and thus “much as these men differ in ethnic character, they are united in gratitude that they have the ‘right’ sex” (Heine, 1986:85). Indeed, even secular philosophers such as Aristotle declared the inherent superiority of men over women (Drury, 1994:35). In the wider Roman Empire in which Christianity developed, the reproductive function of marriage was of great importance, due to much loss of life through war and disease, and short life expectancy, thus marriage was encouraged at a young age, and women were expected to bear a number of children. Furthermore, the secular Roman world was at that time making the regressive transition from the marital egalitarianism and liberty of the Republic to the patriarchal marriage form exemplified by Augustus and his household and thus, given this tide of misogyny, it is hardly surprising that women in particular, both Jew and gentile, were attracted to the nascent Christian religion (Heine, 1986:93).
In the period following the death of Jesus, Christian emphasis shifted from the early ideals of ascetism and homelessness to the establishment of faith communities in order that families should no longer be “torn apart over belief” (Heine, 1986:93-94). Women’s roles within Christianity were redefined in this period by the apostle Paul who, in preaching to non-Jewish communities to create the ‘Israel of God’ (Brown, 1988:49), nevertheless insisted that all who entered the new faith should live according to Jewish custom, with all its rabbinical bias against women (Heine, 1986:95). He propounded his belief that women should be veiled and silent in communal gatherings (Brown, 1988:52), justifying this subordinate, inferior status by appealing to the Creation account in Genesis 1-3, in which God is said to have created women “after men and from men and for men” as companions or helpers (Drury, 1994:34).
But perhaps Paul is not so misogynistic as he is commonly made out to be – he certainly “met women of acknowledged status who were actively engaged in mission and the building up of the community independently of him… not only does he nowhere question working with these women but he confirms, values and at times stresses it – more often and more explicitly than any other author in the New Testament” (Heine, 1986:86). Almost a quarter of the “active collaborators” named in Paul’s writings are women – among them, Euodia and Syntyche, hinted to be martyrs and missionaries like himself, and Phoebe, whom he appears to regard as a deacon in Cenchreae, even including in Romans 16 a ‘letter of commendation’ for her missionary work (Heine, 1986:87-89). His contemporaries, also, record in ‘The Acts of the Apostles’ that Mary, mother of John Mark, and Lydia, a wealthy merchant, each lead a Christian house community; that Tabitha’s charity work was deemed so valuable that Peter raised her back from the dead so she might continue it, and that the four daughters of Philip of Caesarea were prophetesses of renown (Heine, 1986:89). Prisca (or Priscilla) is recorded as having co-founded a Christian community in Ephesus with her husband Aquila, and as participating in the teaching of converts and visitors (Heine, 1986:43). Indeed,
Despite the none too lavish sources, we can construct a vivid picture of community life at the time of the women involved: their influence extended from Caesarea to Rome. Mothers, wives, sisters… and young girls worked at spreading the new faith and building up the communities. Their functions ranged from the highest to the ‘lowest.’ They worked as apostles, deacons, community leaders, teachers and prophets. They travelled as missionaries and did charitable work; they preached, taught, gathered the believers together and sewed clothing for the women. There were well-to-do women among them who shared what they had and kept open house, and there were poor women and slaves… in all this they were no different from men and fellow Christians (Heine, 1986:89-90).
Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183).
Yet even within the early Christian church, there was much disagreement over such issues, and the Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament, “not written by Paul, although they explicitly mention Paul as their author” (Heine, 1986:15) demonstrate this ambivalence toward women. Drury (1994:31) asserts that the teachings of these mostly “celibate male writers” with “fears about their own sexuality” have been used to assign women a secondary or inferior status in the later Christianity, while D’Angelo (2001:399) notes that the writers of the Pastoral Epistles “prescribe submission to a husband… forbid women to have rich clothing, braided hair, teaching, authority over men and early celibacy… and require silence in the assembly.” In fact some early Christian communities such as the Essenes, continuing in the earlier ascetic tradition of the first followers of Jesus, went so far as to exclude women completely, considering them disruptive in that they ‘caused’ jealousy and conflict in men by arousing men’s sexual lust (Brown, 1988:38-39). The Gnostic groups were largely among these.
Gnosticism, “a religious attitude and practice which seems to derive the motives for its views from many different religions and world-views” (Heine, 1986:108-109), was strongly influenced by the philosophical writings of secular philosophers such as Aristotle, who considered every baby girl “a failure, less than the ideal, useful only for her ability to bear children” (Drury, 1994:35). While in some Gnostic sects women certainly held positions of prestige (Heine, 1986:8), influential writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian in other sects expressed considerable hostility toward women (D’Angelo, 2001:405-406; Drury, 1994:35-36; Heine, 1986:35) and to all “womanliness” or sensuality (Brown, 1988:36). Clement, whose writings would be highly influential in later Christian thought, expressed his belief that the souls of men and women are indeed equal in virtue, but that women’s bodies mark them out for a role in childbearing specifically (Heine, 1986:33-35), and asserted that a woman’s role is to “get what is needed out of the provision store, tread mill the mill, do the cooking so that it tastes good to the husband, make the bed, get the drinks… [and] to have children so that the city and the inhabited world do not go under for want of men;” they are to “bathe for purification and for their health, men only for their health” (Heine, 1986:35). And thus, the message of liberation for women from patriarchal oppression that was so central to the message of Jesus (Swidler, 1971:179) was undermined, and Christian thought returned to its androcentric roots, setting a decidedly anti-feminine tone for the Christian tradition and limiting women’s roles to reproduction and household management for centuries to come.
To conclude, understanding the roles of women in the early Church allows us to comprehend the evolution of those roles and thus their many incarnations today, but we must also understand that women’s roles in the early church were even then shaped by historical forces and the social and cultural contexts of the time. This essay has traced women’s roles from their revolutionary origins in early Christianity, exploring the background against which they developed, demonstrating in so doing that the influences of Pauline and Gnostic theology effectively reinstituted the patriarchal status quo that existed in Judaism and the secular Roman Empire prior to the advent of Christianity, thus undermining the emphasis placed on sexual equality by the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
References
Brown, P. (1988). From Apostle to Apologist: Sexual order and sexual renunciation in the Early Church. In ‘The body and society: Men, women, and sexual renunciation in Early Christianity’, pp.33-64. New York: Colombia University Press.
D’Angelo, M. R. (2001). Veils, virgins, and the tongues of men and angels: Women’s heads in Early Christianity. In Elizabeth A. Castelli and Rosamond C. Rodman (eds.) ‘Women, Gender, Religion: A reader, pp.389-419. New York: Palgrave.
Drury, C. (1994). Christianity. In Jean Holm and John Bowker (eds.), ‘Women in Religion.’ pp.30-58. London: Printer Publishers Ltd.
Heine, S. (1986). Women and Early Christianity: Are the feminist scholars right? London: SCM Press Ltd.
Swidler, L. (1971). Jesus was a feminist. Catholic World, 212, pp.177-183.
Anyone who investigates women in the New Testament gets a dusty answer: some names are mentioned, and in a few cases a little more than that. The authors of the biblical writings have no interest in biographies; as men, moreover, they are more interested in their own history (Heine, 1986:55).
All the many contradictory positions on the place of women within Christianity have their foundations in the Bible, and much of the interpretive work that shaped these positions were based on texts written in the first four centuries C.E. (Drury, 1994:31). In seeking to understand the roles of women in the Christian tradition, it is first necessary to uncover their origins in the early Church and the social contexts of its beginnings. In the following, ‘women’s roles’ will refer to those duties performed by, but not necessarily those exclusive to women, while ‘early Christianity’ encompasses the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the subsequent era of Pauline theology and the Pastoral Epistles, and finally the era of Gnosticism (Heine, 1986:11).
This essay will trace the evolution of women’s roles through this early period of Christian history, paying particular attention to the Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions against which Christianity initially was a reaction, demonstrating that despite its revolutionary origins, the Early Church eventually followed its forbears in relegating women to subservient roles.
Jesus of Nazareth led one of a number of ‘renewal movements’ within Judaism that was condemned as heretical by the religious authorities of the time (Heine, 1986:55). The first Christian women were, like their male counterparts, called by Jesus to leave their families and follow him in his ministry. Heine (1986:61) notes that ‘following’ in all Biblical texts connotes “complete participation in the conviction and activity of the travelling preachers,” thus, women became disciples of Jesus to engage in religious practice from which they had been excluded under Jewish law (Swidler, 1971:180). Theirs was a life of homelessness, dependent for their survival on the gifts they received from those they preached to and from their families, and such wealth as they brought with them, which was shared. Three women are named among these followers – Mary Magdalene, Susanna and Johanna – and “it is quite in keeping with the lifestyle of Jesus and his followers that these women… should have supported the Jesus group by giving them provisions” (Heine, 1986:59-60).
Women’s practice in this primordial Christianity stood in stark contrast to their roles in Jewish society of the time, in which they were decidedly inferior – along with slaves and children, women were considered unfit to testify in legal proceedings, and were not permitted to study the Torah, read aloud in the synagogues or lead the assembly in any manner (Swidler, 1971:178). Women held no responsibilities of any significance at prayer and were restricted to the outer court of the temple at Jerusalem, and rabbinical teachings discouraged their leaving the house (except to visit the synagogue) and sought to limit women to particular ‘female areas’ of the home (Swidler, 1971:178-179). Women’s roles were thus reduced to the bearing and raising of children, and further, Jewish women were always answerable to a man, whether her father or husband, or “if a widow, the dead husband’s brother” (Swidler, 1971:178) A Jew could have multiple wives, a Jewess only one husband, she could be divorced with ease by her husband, but could not herself initiate separation (Swidler, 1971:178).
Contempt for women was by no means restricted to Judaism. While Rabbis thanked God that they were not born gentile, female or ‘ignorant’ (Swidler, 1971:178), Hellenistic men gave thanks that they were born neither animal, nor woman, nor barbarian, and thus “much as these men differ in ethnic character, they are united in gratitude that they have the ‘right’ sex” (Heine, 1986:85). Indeed, even secular philosophers such as Aristotle declared the inherent superiority of men over women (Drury, 1994:35). In the wider Roman Empire in which Christianity developed, the reproductive function of marriage was of great importance, due to much loss of life through war and disease, and short life expectancy, thus marriage was encouraged at a young age, and women were expected to bear a number of children. Furthermore, the secular Roman world was at that time making the regressive transition from the marital egalitarianism and liberty of the Republic to the patriarchal marriage form exemplified by Augustus and his household and thus, given this tide of misogyny, it is hardly surprising that women in particular, both Jew and gentile, were attracted to the nascent Christian religion (Heine, 1986:93).
In the period following the death of Jesus, Christian emphasis shifted from the early ideals of ascetism and homelessness to the establishment of faith communities in order that families should no longer be “torn apart over belief” (Heine, 1986:93-94). Women’s roles within Christianity were redefined in this period by the apostle Paul who, in preaching to non-Jewish communities to create the ‘Israel of God’ (Brown, 1988:49), nevertheless insisted that all who entered the new faith should live according to Jewish custom, with all its rabbinical bias against women (Heine, 1986:95). He propounded his belief that women should be veiled and silent in communal gatherings (Brown, 1988:52), justifying this subordinate, inferior status by appealing to the Creation account in Genesis 1-3, in which God is said to have created women “after men and from men and for men” as companions or helpers (Drury, 1994:34).
But perhaps Paul is not so misogynistic as he is commonly made out to be – he certainly “met women of acknowledged status who were actively engaged in mission and the building up of the community independently of him… not only does he nowhere question working with these women but he confirms, values and at times stresses it – more often and more explicitly than any other author in the New Testament” (Heine, 1986:86). Almost a quarter of the “active collaborators” named in Paul’s writings are women – among them, Euodia and Syntyche, hinted to be martyrs and missionaries like himself, and Phoebe, whom he appears to regard as a deacon in Cenchreae, even including in Romans 16 a ‘letter of commendation’ for her missionary work (Heine, 1986:87-89). His contemporaries, also, record in ‘The Acts of the Apostles’ that Mary, mother of John Mark, and Lydia, a wealthy merchant, each lead a Christian house community; that Tabitha’s charity work was deemed so valuable that Peter raised her back from the dead so she might continue it, and that the four daughters of Philip of Caesarea were prophetesses of renown (Heine, 1986:89). Prisca (or Priscilla) is recorded as having co-founded a Christian community in Ephesus with her husband Aquila, and as participating in the teaching of converts and visitors (Heine, 1986:43). Indeed,
Despite the none too lavish sources, we can construct a vivid picture of community life at the time of the women involved: their influence extended from Caesarea to Rome. Mothers, wives, sisters… and young girls worked at spreading the new faith and building up the communities. Their functions ranged from the highest to the ‘lowest.’ They worked as apostles, deacons, community leaders, teachers and prophets. They travelled as missionaries and did charitable work; they preached, taught, gathered the believers together and sewed clothing for the women. There were well-to-do women among them who shared what they had and kept open house, and there were poor women and slaves… in all this they were no different from men and fellow Christians (Heine, 1986:89-90).
Certainly the retention in early Biblical texts of such accounts as these, and of Jesus praising women for putting spiritual growth and learning ahead of domestic responsibilities (thus rejecting the equation of a woman with her domestic, sexual and reproductive roles) demonstrates the early Christian community’s awareness of the centrality of the message of equality in Jesus’ teachings (Swidler, 1971:182-183).
Yet even within the early Christian church, there was much disagreement over such issues, and the Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament, “not written by Paul, although they explicitly mention Paul as their author” (Heine, 1986:15) demonstrate this ambivalence toward women. Drury (1994:31) asserts that the teachings of these mostly “celibate male writers” with “fears about their own sexuality” have been used to assign women a secondary or inferior status in the later Christianity, while D’Angelo (2001:399) notes that the writers of the Pastoral Epistles “prescribe submission to a husband… forbid women to have rich clothing, braided hair, teaching, authority over men and early celibacy… and require silence in the assembly.” In fact some early Christian communities such as the Essenes, continuing in the earlier ascetic tradition of the first followers of Jesus, went so far as to exclude women completely, considering them disruptive in that they ‘caused’ jealousy and conflict in men by arousing men’s sexual lust (Brown, 1988:38-39). The Gnostic groups were largely among these.
Gnosticism, “a religious attitude and practice which seems to derive the motives for its views from many different religions and world-views” (Heine, 1986:108-109), was strongly influenced by the philosophical writings of secular philosophers such as Aristotle, who considered every baby girl “a failure, less than the ideal, useful only for her ability to bear children” (Drury, 1994:35). While in some Gnostic sects women certainly held positions of prestige (Heine, 1986:8), influential writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian in other sects expressed considerable hostility toward women (D’Angelo, 2001:405-406; Drury, 1994:35-36; Heine, 1986:35) and to all “womanliness” or sensuality (Brown, 1988:36). Clement, whose writings would be highly influential in later Christian thought, expressed his belief that the souls of men and women are indeed equal in virtue, but that women’s bodies mark them out for a role in childbearing specifically (Heine, 1986:33-35), and asserted that a woman’s role is to “get what is needed out of the provision store, tread mill the mill, do the cooking so that it tastes good to the husband, make the bed, get the drinks… [and] to have children so that the city and the inhabited world do not go under for want of men;” they are to “bathe for purification and for their health, men only for their health” (Heine, 1986:35). And thus, the message of liberation for women from patriarchal oppression that was so central to the message of Jesus (Swidler, 1971:179) was undermined, and Christian thought returned to its androcentric roots, setting a decidedly anti-feminine tone for the Christian tradition and limiting women’s roles to reproduction and household management for centuries to come.
To conclude, understanding the roles of women in the early Church allows us to comprehend the evolution of those roles and thus their many incarnations today, but we must also understand that women’s roles in the early church were even then shaped by historical forces and the social and cultural contexts of the time. This essay has traced women’s roles from their revolutionary origins in early Christianity, exploring the background against which they developed, demonstrating in so doing that the influences of Pauline and Gnostic theology effectively reinstituted the patriarchal status quo that existed in Judaism and the secular Roman Empire prior to the advent of Christianity, thus undermining the emphasis placed on sexual equality by the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
References
Brown, P. (1988). From Apostle to Apologist: Sexual order and sexual renunciation in the Early Church. In ‘The body and society: Men, women, and sexual renunciation in Early Christianity’, pp.33-64. New York: Colombia University Press.
D’Angelo, M. R. (2001). Veils, virgins, and the tongues of men and angels: Women’s heads in Early Christianity. In Elizabeth A. Castelli and Rosamond C. Rodman (eds.) ‘Women, Gender, Religion: A reader, pp.389-419. New York: Palgrave.
Drury, C. (1994). Christianity. In Jean Holm and John Bowker (eds.), ‘Women in Religion.’ pp.30-58. London: Printer Publishers Ltd.
Heine, S. (1986). Women and Early Christianity: Are the feminist scholars right? London: SCM Press Ltd.
Swidler, L. (1971). Jesus was a feminist. Catholic World, 212, pp.177-183.
Feminism: Its History and Ongoing Influence on Religious Studies
by DannyR
“It is increasingly recognized that feminist theories have not only constituted a most influential scholarship within academia, they have also had a profound impact on the subjectivities of countless women worldwide. This has led to immense personal and political transformations, the consequences and direction of which are still unfolding” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p3).
Feminism has always been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both politics and religion, from its beginnings in the eighteenth century through to the political turmoil of the 1960s, and into the more reflexive postmodern period. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases and allowing women to reinterpret and criticise religious texts, and this has in turn allowed men to become aware of their own gendered natures and religious subjectivities, sometimes to the detriment of the feminist enterprise. The following charts the history of feminist thought as it pertains to the study of religion, concluding that it is a field of enquiry that continues to develop in scope and subtlety.
In order to understand the impact of feminism on religion, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by each term. Feminism is a perspective that exposes and questions the privilege and prestige accorded to men (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3), being traditionally focused on inequalities founded on biological sex but having given rise to the relatively new concept of gender and genderedness (King, 1995, p.12). Alice Schlegel defines gender as the cultural perception, construction and expectations of the sexes, as opposed to actual biological sex (King, 1995, pp.12-13). Defining religion is more problematic, for as King notes (1995, p.10) the term can apply to either a “historically and culturally evolved,” “cumulative” tradition or to a subjective, transcendental experience.
Feminism as a recognizable political and intellectual movement first appeared against the backdrop of Industrialisation in Europe and America (Osto, 2008, p.4), though its origins can be traced back to the eighteenth century writings of Mary Wollstonecraft (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.2) among others. This first wave of feminism was largely concerned with the rights of women to vote and achieving equality in the eyes of the law (Osto, 2008, p.4) but the growing awareness of sex inequality was reflected in religious scholarly circles by the publication of such discourses as Elizabeth Candy Stanton’s The Women’s Bible in 1895 (Giddens, 1997, p.449), in which the author propounds her view that man and woman had been created equal, that the Bible did not reflect this equality and did not therefore reflect the values of God, but rather the views of the committees of men who periodically revised the Biblical texts.
Having declined somewhat after the First World War, the feminist movement regained momentum in the 1960s (Giddens, 1997, p.516). This second wave was characterised by an emphasis on solidarity, intense political activism around employment, reproductive and sexual rights, and the push for the inclusion of Women’s Studies programmes in universities (Osto, 2008, p.4). Central to this activism was the development of the concept of patriarchy, the way in which “masculine values” are built into the very workings of “most organizations” at all levels of management (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.146). The seemingly all-pervasive power of patriarchy led some feminist scholars to name it a religion in itself, “the prevailing religion of the entire planet,” and to declare all world religions merely sects (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, pp.32-33). Yet even in the 1970s some feminist scholars noted that this concept of worldwide patriarchy disregarded historical context, was “monolithic” and “dismissive of women’s resistance and agency” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.147).
Thus in its third wave, beginning in the 1980s, feminism became decidedly theoretical and postmodern in character, rejecting essentialism and shifting its focus from gender inequalities to constructions of gender – or, put another way, the existence of a variety of masculinities and femininities (Osto, 2008, p.4). No longer could women be considered a “homogenous group,” as increasingly it was recognized that sexual preference, race, class and age all contribute to the shaping of subjectivity (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, p.11; Armour, 1999, p.7). It is this more nuanced approach to gender that has allowed religious discourse to blend the masculine with the feminine in its conceptions of divinity, or in some cases to transcend gender altogether, rather than simply substituting the male for the female (King, 1995, p.15). Anne E. Carr, among others, asserts that the task of this third, mature stage of feminism is the building of general theories and the establishment of a “unifying framework” for these more integrative and inclusive analyses (King, 1995, p.20), though this has met with some resistance from separatist feminists such as Mary Daly (King, 1995, p.14).
The challenge posed by feminism has given rise to a number of different responses by men, from the “avidly anti-feminist… such as the Christian Promise Keepers, through to a possibly more accommodating mythopoetic movement” in which men may acknowledge their own gendered natures and spiritual subjectivities (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, pp.4,283). Another such response is the advent of masculinities studies within the academy, which some consider the completion of the feminist project (King, 1995, p.14). If men’s traditional perception of feminism as “about women,” and the lack of discussion around gender in men’s writing “has served to make men invisible, particularly to themselves” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.4), the move toward studies of masculinity, then, constitutes some recognition by men of the validity of women’s experience. A chief criticism of this movement, however, is that where ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’ are studied separately the gender dichotomy is in fact reinforced, the genders polarized further (King, 1995, pp.14-15).
Feminism continues to evolve in European, American, and Australasian countries, and is beginning to have an impact in Asia, Africa and the Middle and Far East (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). The backlash against feminist critique has been at times severe, leading Whitehead and Barrett (2001, p.3) to posit that the resurgence of religious fundamentalism around the world may be a response by men to the “changing positions and expectations of women.” They note that “in terms of sustaining unequal material advantage, opportunity, status and privilege, men have much to lose with the rise of feminist thinking” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). However, the authors are quick to see the opportunities for men in the exchange – empathy, quality in relationships, reflexivity, emotional wellbeing and balance in their lives (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). Such analyses owe their very existence to the insights born of the feminist perspective.
To conclude, from its inception feminism has been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both the political and religious arenas, developing through periods of activism into a discipline concerned with the construction of general theories of gender, becoming ever more reflexive and nuanced in its analyses of patriarchy and subjectivity. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases, and this has resulted in the development of reflexive men’s studies and further opportunities for its own growth. As King (1995, p.12) observes, while “progress in the study of religion is slow … there is no doubt that the perspective of gender is of increasing importance in theoretical and empirical studies.”
References
Armour, E.T. Deconstruction, feminist theology, and the problem of difference: Subverting the Race/Gender divide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Biezeveld, Kune & Mulder, Anne-Claire, (eds.), Towards a different transcendence: Feminist findings on subjectivity, religion and values. Bern, Germany: Peter Lang, European Academic Publishers, (2001).
Giddens, A. Sociology, 3rd Edn. Cambridge: Polity press, 1997.
King, Ursula, (ed.), Religion and gender. London: Blackwell, 1995.
Osto, D. 135.207/307 Sex, Gender and Religion Study Guide. Palmerston North: Massey University, 2008.
Whitehead, S.M., Barrett, F.J. (eds.), The masculinities reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press, 2001.
“It is increasingly recognized that feminist theories have not only constituted a most influential scholarship within academia, they have also had a profound impact on the subjectivities of countless women worldwide. This has led to immense personal and political transformations, the consequences and direction of which are still unfolding” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p3).
Feminism has always been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both politics and religion, from its beginnings in the eighteenth century through to the political turmoil of the 1960s, and into the more reflexive postmodern period. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases and allowing women to reinterpret and criticise religious texts, and this has in turn allowed men to become aware of their own gendered natures and religious subjectivities, sometimes to the detriment of the feminist enterprise. The following charts the history of feminist thought as it pertains to the study of religion, concluding that it is a field of enquiry that continues to develop in scope and subtlety.
In order to understand the impact of feminism on religion, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by each term. Feminism is a perspective that exposes and questions the privilege and prestige accorded to men (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3), being traditionally focused on inequalities founded on biological sex but having given rise to the relatively new concept of gender and genderedness (King, 1995, p.12). Alice Schlegel defines gender as the cultural perception, construction and expectations of the sexes, as opposed to actual biological sex (King, 1995, pp.12-13). Defining religion is more problematic, for as King notes (1995, p.10) the term can apply to either a “historically and culturally evolved,” “cumulative” tradition or to a subjective, transcendental experience.
Feminism as a recognizable political and intellectual movement first appeared against the backdrop of Industrialisation in Europe and America (Osto, 2008, p.4), though its origins can be traced back to the eighteenth century writings of Mary Wollstonecraft (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.2) among others. This first wave of feminism was largely concerned with the rights of women to vote and achieving equality in the eyes of the law (Osto, 2008, p.4) but the growing awareness of sex inequality was reflected in religious scholarly circles by the publication of such discourses as Elizabeth Candy Stanton’s The Women’s Bible in 1895 (Giddens, 1997, p.449), in which the author propounds her view that man and woman had been created equal, that the Bible did not reflect this equality and did not therefore reflect the values of God, but rather the views of the committees of men who periodically revised the Biblical texts.
Having declined somewhat after the First World War, the feminist movement regained momentum in the 1960s (Giddens, 1997, p.516). This second wave was characterised by an emphasis on solidarity, intense political activism around employment, reproductive and sexual rights, and the push for the inclusion of Women’s Studies programmes in universities (Osto, 2008, p.4). Central to this activism was the development of the concept of patriarchy, the way in which “masculine values” are built into the very workings of “most organizations” at all levels of management (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.146). The seemingly all-pervasive power of patriarchy led some feminist scholars to name it a religion in itself, “the prevailing religion of the entire planet,” and to declare all world religions merely sects (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, pp.32-33). Yet even in the 1970s some feminist scholars noted that this concept of worldwide patriarchy disregarded historical context, was “monolithic” and “dismissive of women’s resistance and agency” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.147).
Thus in its third wave, beginning in the 1980s, feminism became decidedly theoretical and postmodern in character, rejecting essentialism and shifting its focus from gender inequalities to constructions of gender – or, put another way, the existence of a variety of masculinities and femininities (Osto, 2008, p.4). No longer could women be considered a “homogenous group,” as increasingly it was recognized that sexual preference, race, class and age all contribute to the shaping of subjectivity (Biezeveld & Mulder, 2001, p.11; Armour, 1999, p.7). It is this more nuanced approach to gender that has allowed religious discourse to blend the masculine with the feminine in its conceptions of divinity, or in some cases to transcend gender altogether, rather than simply substituting the male for the female (King, 1995, p.15). Anne E. Carr, among others, asserts that the task of this third, mature stage of feminism is the building of general theories and the establishment of a “unifying framework” for these more integrative and inclusive analyses (King, 1995, p.20), though this has met with some resistance from separatist feminists such as Mary Daly (King, 1995, p.14).
The challenge posed by feminism has given rise to a number of different responses by men, from the “avidly anti-feminist… such as the Christian Promise Keepers, through to a possibly more accommodating mythopoetic movement” in which men may acknowledge their own gendered natures and spiritual subjectivities (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, pp.4,283). Another such response is the advent of masculinities studies within the academy, which some consider the completion of the feminist project (King, 1995, p.14). If men’s traditional perception of feminism as “about women,” and the lack of discussion around gender in men’s writing “has served to make men invisible, particularly to themselves” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.4), the move toward studies of masculinity, then, constitutes some recognition by men of the validity of women’s experience. A chief criticism of this movement, however, is that where ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’ are studied separately the gender dichotomy is in fact reinforced, the genders polarized further (King, 1995, pp.14-15).
Feminism continues to evolve in European, American, and Australasian countries, and is beginning to have an impact in Asia, Africa and the Middle and Far East (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). The backlash against feminist critique has been at times severe, leading Whitehead and Barrett (2001, p.3) to posit that the resurgence of religious fundamentalism around the world may be a response by men to the “changing positions and expectations of women.” They note that “in terms of sustaining unequal material advantage, opportunity, status and privilege, men have much to lose with the rise of feminist thinking” (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). However, the authors are quick to see the opportunities for men in the exchange – empathy, quality in relationships, reflexivity, emotional wellbeing and balance in their lives (Whitehead & Barrett, 2001, p.3). Such analyses owe their very existence to the insights born of the feminist perspective.
To conclude, from its inception feminism has been concerned with inequalities between the sexes in both the political and religious arenas, developing through periods of activism into a discipline concerned with the construction of general theories of gender, becoming ever more reflexive and nuanced in its analyses of patriarchy and subjectivity. The advent of feminism has presented a challenge to the male dominated hierarchies and institutions of religion and academia, highlighting structural inequalities and biases, and this has resulted in the development of reflexive men’s studies and further opportunities for its own growth. As King (1995, p.12) observes, while “progress in the study of religion is slow … there is no doubt that the perspective of gender is of increasing importance in theoretical and empirical studies.”
References
Armour, E.T. Deconstruction, feminist theology, and the problem of difference: Subverting the Race/Gender divide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Biezeveld, Kune & Mulder, Anne-Claire, (eds.), Towards a different transcendence: Feminist findings on subjectivity, religion and values. Bern, Germany: Peter Lang, European Academic Publishers, (2001).
Giddens, A. Sociology, 3rd Edn. Cambridge: Polity press, 1997.
King, Ursula, (ed.), Religion and gender. London: Blackwell, 1995.
Osto, D. 135.207/307 Sex, Gender and Religion Study Guide. Palmerston North: Massey University, 2008.
Whitehead, S.M., Barrett, F.J. (eds.), The masculinities reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press, 2001.
Maori Cultural Nationalism
by DannyR
Evan Te Ahu Poata-Smith’s He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest (1996) analyses the Maori cultural renaissance and political movement since the 1970s, highlighting the rise of Maori cultural nationalism and identifying its failures. The following outlines these failures and explores the validity of Poata-Smith’s analysis, concluding that while the focus on Maori identity has indeed brought about positive changes in New Zealand society, it is debatable whether these advances are in fact outweighed by the shortcomings of cultural nationalism.
Maori cultural nationalism has been primarily concerned with enabling Maori studies and language to be taught in schools, and with gaining recognition in public institutions and policies for the existence and concerns of Maori (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.106). Poata-Smith does not deny that the rediscovery and preservation of Maori culture is important, however he is highly critical of the shift within the Maori rights movement since the 1980s toward the emphasis on Maori identity and culture over political demonstration. Chief among Poata-Smith’s criticisms are that the rediscovery of Maori culture has superseded demonstrations for Maori rights and systemic change, that rhetoric around Maori identity obscures the sometimes significant differences in the actual experiences of Maori people, that the movement fails to challenge the capitalist system that creates the inequalities between Maori and Pakeha, and indeed between Maori of different socio-economic classes, and that the increasing autonomy of the Maori movement limits its effectiveness.
Cultural nationalism, Poata-Smith (1996, p.106-107, 113) argues, is a substitute for political activism and actual systemic change; its emphasis on changing individual lifestyles and developing individual Maori identity as the antidote to the ills inflicted by Pakeha society actually leads to people being less political. No Maori movement has been built on a foundation of cultural nationalism, Poata-Smith (1996, pp.113-114) notes, nevertheless the ideas and language of cultural nationalism have been adopted by Maori social movements and have inhibited activism and political involvement.
A second criticism of Maori cultural nationalism is that it treats Maori as a unified, homogenous group; from the poorest to the richest, Maori experience is assumed to be the same (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112). There is no recognition that middle-class Maori have the same sort of privileges relative to working-class Maori that Pakeha middle-class people have relative to Pakeha working-class people. Cultural nationalism also fails to recognise that Maori are not and have never been one homogenous people; generational, gender and tribal differences have always existed, and these are often in conflict (McLennan et al., 2004, p.204; Melbourne, 1995, pp.155, 158; Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112). This assumption that there is one true Maori identity encourages Maori to fight over what constitutes ‘authentic’ Maori identity, failing to acknowledge that personal identities are embedded in historical contexts, that identities change over time, and that individuals often identify with multiple groups (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112).
Similarly, cultural nationalists assume that Pakeha are one homogenous group and characterise them as the enemy of Maori, inherently and irredeemably greedy and exploitative, even those who would be allies (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.113). The emphasis on individual identity personalises the conflict, and thus Pakeha people and their presence in Aotearoa become the problem, rather than the capitalist system that perpetrates the inequalities between these groups (Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.111-112).
A further criticism levelled at cultural nationalism is that it has eliminated solidarity between Maori and other oppressed groups, its proponents have advocated the creation and maintenance of an autonomous Maori movement, based on the idea that Pakeha and other non-Maori cannot understand the oppression suffered by Maori people and should therefore be excluded. Poata-Smith (1996, p.107) notes that Donna Awatere and other Maori academics attacked and alienated other Left-wing social movements with accusations that these groups profited by and were in fact predicated on the exploitation of Maori, rather than gunning for the Right and the class system that created the inequalities in the first place. By excluding Pakeha, Poata-Smith (1996, p.114-115) argues, the Maori movement limits itself, depriving itself of Pakehas’ greater access to resources and channels of influence, and swinging from Left to Right policies and ideologies in an absence of any actual power to create change. Maori autonomy allows middle-class interests to hijack the movement and ensure that working-class concerns remain marginal, thus robbing the movement of its power to actually improve the lives of the very people who most need its advocacy (Poata-Smith, 1996, 115).
Poata-Smith (1996, pp.107-109) charges the Maori elite with complicity, in that they consistently fail to challenge the exploitative capitalist economic system that disadvantages Maori. This elite is made up of academics and corporate bosses, wealthy middle-class people employed by the Labour government of the mid-90s to simultaneously push for Maori interests and support the status quo; rewarded with opportunity, prestige and wealth, and thus effectively divorced from the realities of working-class life that the majority of Maori experience (McLennan et al., 2004, pp. 143, 208; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.109-110). Poata-Smith notes that since the 1980’s the Maori movement has fought for precisely the political changes that benefit these already wealthy, middle-class Maori (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112).
Poata-Smith’s analysis is correct on a number of points. In his assertion that Maori identity was unheard-of prior to European colonisation he is supported by Durie (1998, pp.53-55) and Sir Tipene O’Reagan (Melbourne, 1995, pp.155, 158), among others. He is also undoubtedly correct in asserting that the rediscovery of Maori heritage is valuable, but that it does not guarantee change in the present and future on its own, and therefore cannot be an end in itself. If action does not follow inspiration, all that will be accomplished is increased anger and resentment over past injustices, which will in turn make Maori people less inclined to engage with the problem in future.
Poata-Smith recognises that this rediscovery of Maori heritage is intended to enable a person to take action, but notes that this action is essentially individual, that is, increased Maori self-identification leads only to changes in one’s own lifestyle. The idea is that if more people are more ‘authentically’ Maori, they will make personal political choices consistent with that identity and in so doing influence the building of a society that is fair to Maori. This approach limits the spread of political discourse through society; individual choices in isolation make little differences in large populations, and clearly attempts at one-on-one persuasion will not be nearly as effective as an organised campaign to reach as many people as possible. Cultural nationalism, with its emphasis on individual identity and choice, fails to address larger, structural inequalities between Maori and Pakeha and ultimately renders Maori protest ineffective (Sissons, 1993).
Poata-Smith is also right to object to cultural nationalists’ insistence on the autonomy of the Maori movement, it is not necessary to experience first-hand the particular form of oppression, discrimination and exploitation faced by a minority to see how unjust it is and work to change it. Clearly there are plenty of Pakeha who sympathise with Maori (Melbourne, 1995, p.16), those that do not may be those who are unfamiliar with the issues facing Maori or those who are engaged in the promulgation of the dominant narrative, that Maori are receiving ‘special treatment,’ that they are lazy and so on; either way the Maori movement has failed to impress upon such people the extent of the difficulties faced by Maori people (Melbourne, 1995, p.160).
Of course there are other possible explanations for Pakeha indifference, certainly many Pakeha also feel disenfranchised and exploited and are perhaps too preoccupied with their own struggles. Spoonley (1995, pp.99, 110) notes that ‘Pakeha’ is itself an ambiguous and contested term and suggests that Pakeha are still in the process of making the awkward transition from seeing themselves as having been colonised and exploited by the British to seeing themselves as the colonisers, and thus they may not yet fully appreciate the Maori perspective.
It follows that Maori must seek alliances with other oppressed and marginalised groups across ethnic divisions, as they have many of the same concerns. Maori, particularly, are often materially disadvantaged and thus lacking in resources to challenge the prevailing system (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.208-209; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.114-115). It can be argued that circumstances only really improve for minorities when they have allies who are not part of their group, as those ‘alien’ to the wider society need endorsement from others in the mainstream to be accepted. Certainly traditional Maori ways of life are alien to the Pakeha majority, Maori language and cultural expression having been all but banned from schools for the greater part of the twentieth century (McLennan et al., 2004, p.201).
There are points with which we might take issue in Poata-Smith’s analysis, however. A first objection is the unsupported assertion that cultural nationalists see the differences between Maori and Pakeha as biologically based (Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.111-112). He posits that racism is instead a product of capitalism, but does not make these links explicit. McLennan et al. (2004, pp.208-209) suggest that Maori disadvantage is due to New Zealand’s colonial history combined with the capitalist incorporation of Maori into the working-class. European colonisers thus came in, took over, deprived the native peoples and forced them into low-paid labouring jobs, and then interpreted their relative poverty as proof that Maori are racially inferior or just plain lazy.
Poata-Smith also questions the validity of a singular Maori identity, given that there are great disparities between tribes, genders, classes and the like, but others argue that this innovation is not necessarily a bad thing, as a great many Maori now live in cities and see their class as more important to their identity than their tribal affiliation. Some of these people do not have access to the traditional Maori world of marae and iwi, and so cultural nationalism allows them to retain a sense of connection with their ancestry in a way that they feel is relevant (Durie, 1998, pp.57-59). Sissons (1993) notes that Maori identity has such beneficial effects as improved self-esteem on the individual level and more harmonious relations at the group level. Others note that indigenous cultural revivals around the world are important precursors to community construction and mobilization (Najel, 1998, pp.252-253).
Lastly, it should be noted that subsequent to the publication of He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest, New Zealand has undergone significant changes to its political systems, going so far as to institute Maori seats in Parliament. Future research should examine the extent to which these changes exacerbate or compensate for the problems identified by Poata-Smith.
In conclusion, cultural nationalism has contributed in a number of positive ways to New Zealand society, and to Maori in particular, and can be seen as an important element in the movement for Maori equality. It is not, however, without significant problems, most importantly that it dissuades Maori from engaging in political activism, alienates the Maori movement from similar social movements that would otherwise be its allies, fails to recognise the sometimes substantial differences in the interests of those it claims to represent, and ultimately fails to challenge the system that creates the very inequalities in society that it purports to fight.
References
Durie, M. (1998). Mana Tupuna, identity and heritage. Te Mana, Te Kawanatanga: The politics of Maori self-determination. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
McLennan, G. Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students, 2nd ed. New Zealand: Pearson Education.
Melbourne, H. (1995). Maori sovereignty: The Maori perspective. New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Najel, J. (1998). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. In M. W. Hughey (ed.) New tribalisms: The resurgence of race and ethnicity (pp.237-272). New York: New York University Press.
Poata-Smith, E. Te Ahu. (1996). He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest. In P. Spoonley, C. Macpherson and D. Pearson (eds.) Nga Patai:Racism and ethnic relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 91-115). New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Sissons, J. (1993). The systemisation of tradition: Maori culture as a strategic resource. Oceania, 64(2), 97-116.
Spoonley, P. (1995). Constructing ourselves: The postcolonial politics of Pakeha. In M. Wilson and A. Yeatman (eds.) Justice and identity: Antipodean practices (pp.96-115). New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.
Evan Te Ahu Poata-Smith’s He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest (1996) analyses the Maori cultural renaissance and political movement since the 1970s, highlighting the rise of Maori cultural nationalism and identifying its failures. The following outlines these failures and explores the validity of Poata-Smith’s analysis, concluding that while the focus on Maori identity has indeed brought about positive changes in New Zealand society, it is debatable whether these advances are in fact outweighed by the shortcomings of cultural nationalism.
Maori cultural nationalism has been primarily concerned with enabling Maori studies and language to be taught in schools, and with gaining recognition in public institutions and policies for the existence and concerns of Maori (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.106). Poata-Smith does not deny that the rediscovery and preservation of Maori culture is important, however he is highly critical of the shift within the Maori rights movement since the 1980s toward the emphasis on Maori identity and culture over political demonstration. Chief among Poata-Smith’s criticisms are that the rediscovery of Maori culture has superseded demonstrations for Maori rights and systemic change, that rhetoric around Maori identity obscures the sometimes significant differences in the actual experiences of Maori people, that the movement fails to challenge the capitalist system that creates the inequalities between Maori and Pakeha, and indeed between Maori of different socio-economic classes, and that the increasing autonomy of the Maori movement limits its effectiveness.
Cultural nationalism, Poata-Smith (1996, p.106-107, 113) argues, is a substitute for political activism and actual systemic change; its emphasis on changing individual lifestyles and developing individual Maori identity as the antidote to the ills inflicted by Pakeha society actually leads to people being less political. No Maori movement has been built on a foundation of cultural nationalism, Poata-Smith (1996, pp.113-114) notes, nevertheless the ideas and language of cultural nationalism have been adopted by Maori social movements and have inhibited activism and political involvement.
A second criticism of Maori cultural nationalism is that it treats Maori as a unified, homogenous group; from the poorest to the richest, Maori experience is assumed to be the same (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112). There is no recognition that middle-class Maori have the same sort of privileges relative to working-class Maori that Pakeha middle-class people have relative to Pakeha working-class people. Cultural nationalism also fails to recognise that Maori are not and have never been one homogenous people; generational, gender and tribal differences have always existed, and these are often in conflict (McLennan et al., 2004, p.204; Melbourne, 1995, pp.155, 158; Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112). This assumption that there is one true Maori identity encourages Maori to fight over what constitutes ‘authentic’ Maori identity, failing to acknowledge that personal identities are embedded in historical contexts, that identities change over time, and that individuals often identify with multiple groups (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112).
Similarly, cultural nationalists assume that Pakeha are one homogenous group and characterise them as the enemy of Maori, inherently and irredeemably greedy and exploitative, even those who would be allies (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.113). The emphasis on individual identity personalises the conflict, and thus Pakeha people and their presence in Aotearoa become the problem, rather than the capitalist system that perpetrates the inequalities between these groups (Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.111-112).
A further criticism levelled at cultural nationalism is that it has eliminated solidarity between Maori and other oppressed groups, its proponents have advocated the creation and maintenance of an autonomous Maori movement, based on the idea that Pakeha and other non-Maori cannot understand the oppression suffered by Maori people and should therefore be excluded. Poata-Smith (1996, p.107) notes that Donna Awatere and other Maori academics attacked and alienated other Left-wing social movements with accusations that these groups profited by and were in fact predicated on the exploitation of Maori, rather than gunning for the Right and the class system that created the inequalities in the first place. By excluding Pakeha, Poata-Smith (1996, p.114-115) argues, the Maori movement limits itself, depriving itself of Pakehas’ greater access to resources and channels of influence, and swinging from Left to Right policies and ideologies in an absence of any actual power to create change. Maori autonomy allows middle-class interests to hijack the movement and ensure that working-class concerns remain marginal, thus robbing the movement of its power to actually improve the lives of the very people who most need its advocacy (Poata-Smith, 1996, 115).
Poata-Smith (1996, pp.107-109) charges the Maori elite with complicity, in that they consistently fail to challenge the exploitative capitalist economic system that disadvantages Maori. This elite is made up of academics and corporate bosses, wealthy middle-class people employed by the Labour government of the mid-90s to simultaneously push for Maori interests and support the status quo; rewarded with opportunity, prestige and wealth, and thus effectively divorced from the realities of working-class life that the majority of Maori experience (McLennan et al., 2004, pp. 143, 208; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.109-110). Poata-Smith notes that since the 1980’s the Maori movement has fought for precisely the political changes that benefit these already wealthy, middle-class Maori (Poata-Smith, 1996, p.112).
Poata-Smith’s analysis is correct on a number of points. In his assertion that Maori identity was unheard-of prior to European colonisation he is supported by Durie (1998, pp.53-55) and Sir Tipene O’Reagan (Melbourne, 1995, pp.155, 158), among others. He is also undoubtedly correct in asserting that the rediscovery of Maori heritage is valuable, but that it does not guarantee change in the present and future on its own, and therefore cannot be an end in itself. If action does not follow inspiration, all that will be accomplished is increased anger and resentment over past injustices, which will in turn make Maori people less inclined to engage with the problem in future.
Poata-Smith recognises that this rediscovery of Maori heritage is intended to enable a person to take action, but notes that this action is essentially individual, that is, increased Maori self-identification leads only to changes in one’s own lifestyle. The idea is that if more people are more ‘authentically’ Maori, they will make personal political choices consistent with that identity and in so doing influence the building of a society that is fair to Maori. This approach limits the spread of political discourse through society; individual choices in isolation make little differences in large populations, and clearly attempts at one-on-one persuasion will not be nearly as effective as an organised campaign to reach as many people as possible. Cultural nationalism, with its emphasis on individual identity and choice, fails to address larger, structural inequalities between Maori and Pakeha and ultimately renders Maori protest ineffective (Sissons, 1993).
Poata-Smith is also right to object to cultural nationalists’ insistence on the autonomy of the Maori movement, it is not necessary to experience first-hand the particular form of oppression, discrimination and exploitation faced by a minority to see how unjust it is and work to change it. Clearly there are plenty of Pakeha who sympathise with Maori (Melbourne, 1995, p.16), those that do not may be those who are unfamiliar with the issues facing Maori or those who are engaged in the promulgation of the dominant narrative, that Maori are receiving ‘special treatment,’ that they are lazy and so on; either way the Maori movement has failed to impress upon such people the extent of the difficulties faced by Maori people (Melbourne, 1995, p.160).
Of course there are other possible explanations for Pakeha indifference, certainly many Pakeha also feel disenfranchised and exploited and are perhaps too preoccupied with their own struggles. Spoonley (1995, pp.99, 110) notes that ‘Pakeha’ is itself an ambiguous and contested term and suggests that Pakeha are still in the process of making the awkward transition from seeing themselves as having been colonised and exploited by the British to seeing themselves as the colonisers, and thus they may not yet fully appreciate the Maori perspective.
It follows that Maori must seek alliances with other oppressed and marginalised groups across ethnic divisions, as they have many of the same concerns. Maori, particularly, are often materially disadvantaged and thus lacking in resources to challenge the prevailing system (McLennan et al., 2004, pp.208-209; Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.114-115). It can be argued that circumstances only really improve for minorities when they have allies who are not part of their group, as those ‘alien’ to the wider society need endorsement from others in the mainstream to be accepted. Certainly traditional Maori ways of life are alien to the Pakeha majority, Maori language and cultural expression having been all but banned from schools for the greater part of the twentieth century (McLennan et al., 2004, p.201).
There are points with which we might take issue in Poata-Smith’s analysis, however. A first objection is the unsupported assertion that cultural nationalists see the differences between Maori and Pakeha as biologically based (Poata-Smith, 1996, pp.111-112). He posits that racism is instead a product of capitalism, but does not make these links explicit. McLennan et al. (2004, pp.208-209) suggest that Maori disadvantage is due to New Zealand’s colonial history combined with the capitalist incorporation of Maori into the working-class. European colonisers thus came in, took over, deprived the native peoples and forced them into low-paid labouring jobs, and then interpreted their relative poverty as proof that Maori are racially inferior or just plain lazy.
Poata-Smith also questions the validity of a singular Maori identity, given that there are great disparities between tribes, genders, classes and the like, but others argue that this innovation is not necessarily a bad thing, as a great many Maori now live in cities and see their class as more important to their identity than their tribal affiliation. Some of these people do not have access to the traditional Maori world of marae and iwi, and so cultural nationalism allows them to retain a sense of connection with their ancestry in a way that they feel is relevant (Durie, 1998, pp.57-59). Sissons (1993) notes that Maori identity has such beneficial effects as improved self-esteem on the individual level and more harmonious relations at the group level. Others note that indigenous cultural revivals around the world are important precursors to community construction and mobilization (Najel, 1998, pp.252-253).
Lastly, it should be noted that subsequent to the publication of He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest, New Zealand has undergone significant changes to its political systems, going so far as to institute Maori seats in Parliament. Future research should examine the extent to which these changes exacerbate or compensate for the problems identified by Poata-Smith.
In conclusion, cultural nationalism has contributed in a number of positive ways to New Zealand society, and to Maori in particular, and can be seen as an important element in the movement for Maori equality. It is not, however, without significant problems, most importantly that it dissuades Maori from engaging in political activism, alienates the Maori movement from similar social movements that would otherwise be its allies, fails to recognise the sometimes substantial differences in the interests of those it claims to represent, and ultimately fails to challenge the system that creates the very inequalities in society that it purports to fight.
References
Durie, M. (1998). Mana Tupuna, identity and heritage. Te Mana, Te Kawanatanga: The politics of Maori self-determination. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.
McLennan, G. Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students, 2nd ed. New Zealand: Pearson Education.
Melbourne, H. (1995). Maori sovereignty: The Maori perspective. New Zealand: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Najel, J. (1998). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. In M. W. Hughey (ed.) New tribalisms: The resurgence of race and ethnicity (pp.237-272). New York: New York University Press.
Poata-Smith, E. Te Ahu. (1996). He Pokeke Uenuku i Tu Ai: The evolution of contemporary Maori protest. In P. Spoonley, C. Macpherson and D. Pearson (eds.) Nga Patai:Racism and ethnic relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 91-115). New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Sissons, J. (1993). The systemisation of tradition: Maori culture as a strategic resource. Oceania, 64(2), 97-116.
Spoonley, P. (1995). Constructing ourselves: The postcolonial politics of Pakeha. In M. Wilson and A. Yeatman (eds.) Justice and identity: Antipodean practices (pp.96-115). New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.
How Useful Is It To Talk About 'The Family' In The Singular?
by DannyR
There is, in this day and age, a great deal of political debate around what is best for ‘the family’ in our society and how it must be protected from an erosion of values. Sociology has much to offer in this debate, and yet to do so, it must be clear what is meant by ‘family.’ How useful is it, then, to talk about ‘the family’ in the singular? The following will argue that this usage obscures differences and divisions both between families and within families, and that as such, it is more appropriate in sociological discourse to speak of families, acknowledging the diversity of family forms both cross-culturally and within Western society, while recognizing that despite their differences, family is still a central organizing feature of most people’s lives.
In Western society, the terms ‘family’ and ‘family life’ are generally assumed to refer to the now-traditional nuclear family model. Cheal (2004, pp. 4-5) defines a ‘nuclear family’ as a legally married heterosexual couple and their children, a unit that regards itself as and is regarded by others as separate from wider society. ‘Family’ then, in mainstream Western society at least, usually refers to ‘Mum, Dad and the kids’. Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are generally considered ‘extended family.’ This nuclear family model has been institutionalised in political and academic discourse, being considered the norm even within sociological schools, particularly functionalism.
Functionalists argue that this nuclear family model prevails in Western society because it is functional, i.e.: it is the model that best meets the needs of the modern industrial society in that, being small and less bound to the maintenance of extended family ties, it is more geographically mobile and can therefore meet the changing demands of the industrial economy (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones, et al., 1996, p.487). More significantly, the nuclear family has become the place where individuals have their needs for intimacy, meaning, and emotional support met. Intimacy may be defined as “close association and privileged knowledge, empathy and understanding, love and care” (Jamieson, 1998, p.98). More practically, as the primary welfare institution through which individuals are expected to have their health and nutritional needs catered to, ‘the family’ reduces these burdens on society (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004 p.80).
A first objection to speaking of ‘the family’ is that this implies that a family is a unit. Individuals within a family do not act collectively, or even necessarily share the same values or goals, and even within the nuclear family model husband and wife have clearly differentiated gendered roles in regard to providing for and supporting family members. The father/husband is assumed to act as protector, provider and leader, the mother/wife as homebound nurturer and housekeeper, and their children are expected to be obedient and learn from their parents the roles they will perform when they themselves have matured (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004, p.80). The nuclear family is divided along gender and generational lines, and this fact is obscured by referring to ‘the family’ in the singular.
Structuralists including Marxists and feminists see ‘the family’ as a place of conflict and power struggles. Feminists argue that in the nuclear family women are “systematically disadvantaged,” and that men’s power in society both derives from and is reinforced by their privileged position in the home (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley, 2006, p.81). Men, as the breadwinners and decision makers, have control over the distribution of income within the home, and the institution of ‘the family’ puts women and children in a position of dependency. The division of labour in ‘the family’ favours men, as women do a greater share of the housework, are expected to provide sex, produce children and be the primary caregiver, all for little material recompense – thus for feminists, the family is essentially an institution by which men maintain power over and exploit women.
Marxists have traditionally considered ‘the family’ a fundamental institution of capitalist society, one that refreshes and renews workers without the state having to pay for it, and also produces and socialises children to fulfil the roles modelled by their parents, thereby ensuring a continual supply of workers (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley, 2004, pp.80-81). For Marxists, ‘the family’ is the basic unit upon which industrial society is built, for in trading their labour for wages with which to provide for their families the working class supports the economy (Bilton, Bonnett, Jones et al., 1996, p. 510). This ‘political economy’ approach asserts that it is society that shapes the family and all the interpersonal relationships within it, and those between it and the outside world, that in fact individuals are not in control of their intimate lives, rather their lives are predicated on class and wealth (Baker, 2001, pp.70-72).
Structuralist and functionalist understandings of ‘the family’ as essentially nuclear, while highly influential in the twentieth century, are problematic in that they assume the ubiquity of the nuclear family model, presupposing an essential basic family unit discernable at all times in all cultures. Clearly this is not the case: historically, notions of ‘the family’ have changed significantly even within Western society, and even the briefest survey of other cultures reveals that there are many diverse understandings of what constitutes ‘family’ across the globe. Jamieson (1998, pp.17-20) describes the evolution of the family in Western society, noting that in the pre-modern/pre-industrial times, families were characterised by a lack of privacy, and that intimacy was tempered by the restrictions of hierarchy based on age and gender. Furthermore, children were not “cherished” or protected as they are today; rather, they were treated as adults and sent out into the workforce to provide extra income. It was only in the modern industrial period that expectations of intimacy and privacy came to be associated with the family, as with family households no longer the primary site of production, marriage and parenthood came to be viewed as more about individuals’ emotional lives.
Marriage, in particular, came to be seen as a source of renewal, support and empathy, in a time where the division of labour in families became more rigidly gendered, with men expected to be the breadwinner, and women the primary caregivers. Having outlined these changes, Jamieson (1998, pp.17-20) goes on to describe two interpretations of the post-modern family, an optimistic appraisal in which the attainment of good relationships, characterised by empathy and understanding, is seen as more important than conventional marriage, where individuals are free to negotiate their own rules around the division of labour and sexual conduct; and a pessimistic appraisal, in which a prevailing ethos of individualism and consumerism in fact isolates people and prevents the attainment of intimacy. Jamieson’s description illustrates that family and household dynamics within Western society have varied over time, and that speaking of ‘the family’ in the singular obscures this historical development.
A second objection is that speaking of ‘the family’ ignores the sometimes substantial differences between families even within mainstream Western society. Even to the lay person, ‘family’ will mean different things depending on her or his own cultural and class background, age and gender (Baker, 2001, p.244). The concept of ‘the family’ does not take account of the changing realities of people’s lives: children grow up and move out into flats, parents separate or spouses die, and thus even nuclear families change over time. There are step-families, single-parent families, adoptive families, married couples and de facto couples which may or may not have or choose to have children. There are also families where the grandparents live in the household, households comprised of unmarried adult siblings, and even polyamorous families in which adults may have more than one romantic relationship concurrently, living as a ‘triple,’ a ‘V’ or in some other non-monogamous arrangement (Barker, 2005, pp.75-88; Bettinger, 2006, p.161).
The heterosexual romantic couple is not necessarily the core of a family unit in contemporary Western society, as gay and lesbian families which may be any combination of the above variations on the theme of ‘family’ are increasingly recognised as acceptable alternatives. Cheal (2002, p.6) notes that the increasing incidence of homosexual cohabitation being recognized as ‘family’ is part of a wider trend of societal acceptance and legal recognition of non-married long-term relationships, while others see these kinds of ‘families of choice’ as inevitable in late modernity (Weeks, 2002, p.218). This listing of exceptions to the nuclear family model is by no means exhaustive, and yet it illustrates the inadequacy of the assumption that the nuclear family is the norm. Referring to ‘the family’ obscures the differences between these families and suggests that there is something dysfunctional or deficient about families that don’t match the norm.
A third objection to the conflation of ‘the family’ with the nuclear family model is that it ignores the many variations of family structure that can be observed in other cultures, the nuclear family is culturally specific and therefore cannot be generalised (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004, pp.80-81). This failure to acknowledge the diversity of family structures in other cultures wrongly implies that the social structure and composition of Western society is in fact the norm, and thus that any society that deviates from these norms is pathological or dysfunctional. And yet there are any number of ‘functional’ alternatives to the nuclear family model in other cultures; such as the Hamula of Palestine, described by Cheal (2004, pp. 4-5), where ‘family’ consists of any number of men, related to one another by descent from a common ancestor, living hierarchically in the same village, each the head of a household consisting of wives and children. Closer to home, there are the ‘extended families’ of Polynesian cultures, such as the Maori whanau, in which family members have their emotional and material needs met by close-knit intergenerational kin networks. Even so, the fact remains that most of us organise our lives around some idea of family: Jamieson (1998, p.100) and Cheal (2004, pp. 4-5) both note that conventional nuclear family life is still seen by many in Western society as an ideal to aspire to. Additionally, there seems to exist something like ‘family’ in all societies and cultures – across the world humans court, marry, cooperate economically, raise children, and trace their lines of descent (Baker p.244).
In recognition of this, contemporary sociological definitions of family are notably unspecific and broad. Cheal (2002, p.4) for instance acknowledges that no one definition of family works in all contexts, and accordingly defines ‘family’ as a large or small group of people, who are in intimate relationships with one another that last over time and across generations. Symbolic interactionist interpretations, in stark contrast to structuralist and functionalist views of family, define a family as a set of relationships negotiated and constructed by individuals, rather than a ubiquitous set of pre-existing roles that people come to inhabit, the emphasis being on the processes of interaction, rather than on social structures and functions (McLennan, Ryan & Spoonley 2004, pp.81-82).
In sum, sociological discourse should not presuppose the ubiquity of the nuclear family model, but rather must acknowledge that what we in Western society have come to think of as ‘the family’ is in reality no more than a set of ideas or an ideological construct firmly grounded in our own cultural history and bound to our own expectations of generational and gender roles. Consequently, sociological definitions of family life must make allowance for the diverse ways in which individuals structure their family lives, and as such references to ‘the family’ in sociological discourse should be avoided. Where the terms ‘the family’ or ‘family life’ are employed, they must then be understood to encompass the wide diversity of family forms found across time, cultures and even within our own society.
References
Baker, M. (2001). Families, labour and love: Family diversity in a changing world. Crow’s Nest NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Barker, M. (2005). ‘This is my partner, and this is my… partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world.’ Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18(1), 75-88.
Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., Jones, P., Skinner, D., Stanworth, M. & Webster, A. (1996). Theorising modern family life. In Introductory Sociology (3rd ed.). (pp. 479- 524). Macmillan Press: London.
Cheal, D. (2002). Introduction: Asking questions. In Sociology of family life (pp.1- 17). Basingstoke: Palgrave publishers.
Giddens, A. (1997). ‘Family, marriage and personal life’ in Sociology (3rd ed.). Polity Press, Cambridge, pp.139-170.
Jamieson, L. (1998). From ‘the family’ to sex and intimacy. Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies (pp.15-42). Cambridge: Polity Press.
McLennan, G., Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). ‘Family Life’ in Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students (2nd ed.), Pearson Education: New Zealand, pp. 77-95.
Weeks, J. (2002). Elective families: Lesbian and gay life experiments. In Alan Carling, Simon Duncan and Rosalind Edwards (Eds.) Analysing families: Morality and rationality in policy and practice, pp. 218-228. Routledge, London.
Jamieson, L. (1998). From ‘the family’ to sex and intimacy. Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies (pp.15-42). Cambridge: Polity Press.
McLennan, G., Ryan, A. & Spoonley, P. (2004). ‘Family Life’ in Exploring Society: Sociology for New Zealand students (2nd ed.), Pearson Education: New Zealand, pp. 77-95.
Weeks, J. (2002). Elective families: Lesbian and gay life experiments. In Alan Carling, Simon Duncan and Rosalind Edwards (Eds.) Analysing families: Morality and rationality in policy and practice, pp. 218-228. Routledge, London.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The Art of Falling in Love (Harriet Swain)
[Reprinted from The Guardian]
Falling in love is one of the main perks of being a student. Never again are you likely to find such a wide selection of potential mates all in one place, or spend so much time gazing into each other's textbooks.
First though, there are a few people you must try not to fall in love with. These include: your best friend's ex, your flatmate, your flatmate's ex, your personal tutor, your tutor's spouse, the university chaplain.
It takes between 90 seconds and four minutes to decide if you fancy someone. In fact, according to research by psychologist Arthur Arun, if you spend half an hour sharing intimate details of your lives with a complete stranger and then four minutes staring deeply into their eyes, it is possible to fancy almost anyone. See the above list of lovers-to-avoid, and avert your gaze.
Only 7% of feeling attracted to someone has anything to do with what they say. This may be reassuring if you find every time you meet the object of your affections you talk complete gibberish.
Once you fall in love, it is a good idea to make sure the other person falls in love with you. Why not suggest bungee jumping as the first date? No, really. It has been proved that people easily confuse sexual arousal with downright terror. They will think they are madly in love when in fact they are worried about smashing their head on a large rock.
Alternatively, you could try cooking a candlelit dinner. Candles make your pupils dilate, which is another sign of arousal. Do make sure you can cook, though, as people are unlikely to confuse food poisoning with love.
If your date offers to cook for you, say how delicious it all was. Compliments make people feel good about themselves and more inclined to feel good about you. Then fill up their glass, and look deeply into their eyes. Again.
Writing poetry is nice, unless your beloved is studying English literature, in which case you'll be facing strong competition from the likes of William Shakespeare and John Donne. Unfortunately for scientists, equations are rarely an acceptable alternative.
Once you love each other, you are likely to start mirroring each other's movements, such as not turning up to lectures early in the morning. You may also start talking constantly about your lover, and snogging on the sofa while your flatmates are trying to watch telly. This will make you intensely annoying to everyone else, but you probably won't even notice. In any case, you can't help it. Scientists have shown falling in love is like a form of obsessive compulsive disorder, without the constant housework.
Meanwhile, if you've not managed to stare at a stranger long enough to clinch a date by Valentine's Day, don't despair. You can always mirror your professors and fall in love with your subject.
Why Danny H8s teh Gay
My gay boyfriend recently asked me, half-jokingly, how I reconcile my utter rejection of ‘gay’ identity with the fact that I’m in a relationship with him. This article won’t make me popular but I’ll give my response here anyway, as I was (lovingly) cut off when I got into it.
Where to start??
I just hate the binary model of sexuality that ‘gay’ identity reinforces. We see it everywhere, in the papers, on TV, in films and books and public debates: you’re either straight or you’re gay. And it’s not just that the mainstream isn’t aware of the alternatives, the gay media itself promotes this simplistic and offensive view. I mean, my god, Ari Benderski of Gay.com even went so far recently as to state that male bisexuality cannot exist! I’m living proof to the contrary, as are a number of my friends.
The presentation of ‘gay’ as the alternative to heterosexuality in public discourse about sexuality obscures differences within the gay community as much as it erases those non-heterosexuals who don’t use the gay label. Andrew Sullivan, a regular contributor to The Advocate magazine in the States, wrote in his highly influential book Virtually Normal that gay people are just that; that the only difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is the sex of the partners involved, and therefore that gays should be accorded the same rights as straights. Now, this call for equality is certainly admirable, but his statement glosses over the sometimes substantial differences that exist, not only between straight and gay people, but between gays.
Gay identity has been hijacked by the interests of white, middle-class men, their concerns superseding those of gay men of colour, working and lower class men, women of all varieties and those queer people who are somewhere in-between. Capitalist interests have invaded and permeated gay media, dictating tastes in everything from furniture to clothing to the physical attributes of one’s chosen partner. I guarantee you Miley and Britney aren’t throwing their weight behind gay marriage for any reason other than because they can make a fair bit of money from supporting the ‘mos.
There are decidedly fascist undertones in the gay media’s presentation of gay identity, you can argue all you want that it’s because gay men have an inherent predisposition toward ‘beauty’ but I utterly reject this – it’s ideology. Producers of luxury commodities realised a decade or so ago that gay, middle-class white men constituted a largely untapped market with proportionately greater disposable income to devote to luxuries, and they have targeted this group aggressively ever since, transforming ‘gay’ from a sexual identity into a niche consumer lifestyle. Also, the suggestion that gays have an inclination toward beauty (besides being demonstrably false – there are some pretty tasteless gay guys out there) essentially implies that what is presented in gay media is more beautiful than any alternative. And what images dominate gay media? Able-bodied, middle-class white men. An attractive man, as mandated by the gay press, looks a lot like the Aryan man idealised by the Nazis.
Politically, the gay rights movement is predicated on the assumption of a genetic basis for exclusive homosexuality, refusing to acknowledge the socially constructed aspects of sexual identity. It’s founded on the feeble apology “I was born this way, I can’t help it.” There’s SO much to take issue with here. For a start, this supplicant stance belittles the very sexuality it represents. You’re not going to get anyone to treat you as an equal if by your argument and tone you’re telling them that you’re not. Furthermore, if gay identity as we know it in the western world is encoded in genes, what are we to make of pan- and bisexuals? Are their gay genes somehow faulty? Or are there bi genes too? How about S&M genes? (See where this is going?). Gay ideologues refuse to acknowledge that it is in fact possible to be ‘post’ or ‘ex’ gay, ironic really, they get pretty angry when other people are telling them what their own sexuality is, yet they cast blanket aspersions about the sexualities of others. Consider also that the studies that ‘confirm’ a genetic basis for homosexuality completely ignore lesbianism, and what you have is not scientific study but the furthering of a political agenda.
To secure for themselves the privileges accorded to heterosexuals gay advocates have ignored the evidence of alternative trans- and homosexualities of other cultures, and rewritten the same-gender relationships of history in support of their claims. Close, platonic male-male friendships such as that of the Bible’s David and Jonathan and that of Achilles and Patroclus from classical Greek literature are ret-conned as gay relationships, and this aggressive piracy of heterosexual male role-models discourages these kind of ennobling friendships between straight men, arguably causing much of the dysfunction in many contemporary male-male and male-female relationships**.
The part that really fucks me off is that the public endorsement of the binary sexual model secures rights and recognition for the most politically and economically powerful group in the queer community, who then abandon all those that mainstream society deems less acceptable, most notably the transgendered and intersexed, and to a lesser extent the bisexual and asexual. The gay rights movement and media give lip-service to diversity while it is politically expedient for them to do so until it is not, and then they simply erase us from the debate. Gay rights activists tend to forget that recognition of their rights was first won at Stonewall, not by themselves, but by the transgender community.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying I don’t like gay people, and I’m not saying that identifying as gay is inherently bad. By all means, use the word if you feel it best represents your sexuality, but be aware that it is loaded with ideology and its use has very real implications for those queer people who don’t so easily fit into the binary model of sexuality. If you’re going to be gay, be a good gay, own it, be proud of it, and don’t be manipulated by the-powers-that-be. Make it yours. Most importantly, don’t forget to look out for your queer brothers and sisters, ‘cos you sure as hell didn’t win your rights by yourself.
DannyR
Where to start??
I just hate the binary model of sexuality that ‘gay’ identity reinforces. We see it everywhere, in the papers, on TV, in films and books and public debates: you’re either straight or you’re gay. And it’s not just that the mainstream isn’t aware of the alternatives, the gay media itself promotes this simplistic and offensive view. I mean, my god, Ari Benderski of Gay.com even went so far recently as to state that male bisexuality cannot exist! I’m living proof to the contrary, as are a number of my friends.
The presentation of ‘gay’ as the alternative to heterosexuality in public discourse about sexuality obscures differences within the gay community as much as it erases those non-heterosexuals who don’t use the gay label. Andrew Sullivan, a regular contributor to The Advocate magazine in the States, wrote in his highly influential book Virtually Normal that gay people are just that; that the only difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is the sex of the partners involved, and therefore that gays should be accorded the same rights as straights. Now, this call for equality is certainly admirable, but his statement glosses over the sometimes substantial differences that exist, not only between straight and gay people, but between gays.
Gay identity has been hijacked by the interests of white, middle-class men, their concerns superseding those of gay men of colour, working and lower class men, women of all varieties and those queer people who are somewhere in-between. Capitalist interests have invaded and permeated gay media, dictating tastes in everything from furniture to clothing to the physical attributes of one’s chosen partner. I guarantee you Miley and Britney aren’t throwing their weight behind gay marriage for any reason other than because they can make a fair bit of money from supporting the ‘mos.
There are decidedly fascist undertones in the gay media’s presentation of gay identity, you can argue all you want that it’s because gay men have an inherent predisposition toward ‘beauty’ but I utterly reject this – it’s ideology. Producers of luxury commodities realised a decade or so ago that gay, middle-class white men constituted a largely untapped market with proportionately greater disposable income to devote to luxuries, and they have targeted this group aggressively ever since, transforming ‘gay’ from a sexual identity into a niche consumer lifestyle. Also, the suggestion that gays have an inclination toward beauty (besides being demonstrably false – there are some pretty tasteless gay guys out there) essentially implies that what is presented in gay media is more beautiful than any alternative. And what images dominate gay media? Able-bodied, middle-class white men. An attractive man, as mandated by the gay press, looks a lot like the Aryan man idealised by the Nazis.
Politically, the gay rights movement is predicated on the assumption of a genetic basis for exclusive homosexuality, refusing to acknowledge the socially constructed aspects of sexual identity. It’s founded on the feeble apology “I was born this way, I can’t help it.” There’s SO much to take issue with here. For a start, this supplicant stance belittles the very sexuality it represents. You’re not going to get anyone to treat you as an equal if by your argument and tone you’re telling them that you’re not. Furthermore, if gay identity as we know it in the western world is encoded in genes, what are we to make of pan- and bisexuals? Are their gay genes somehow faulty? Or are there bi genes too? How about S&M genes? (See where this is going?). Gay ideologues refuse to acknowledge that it is in fact possible to be ‘post’ or ‘ex’ gay, ironic really, they get pretty angry when other people are telling them what their own sexuality is, yet they cast blanket aspersions about the sexualities of others. Consider also that the studies that ‘confirm’ a genetic basis for homosexuality completely ignore lesbianism, and what you have is not scientific study but the furthering of a political agenda.
To secure for themselves the privileges accorded to heterosexuals gay advocates have ignored the evidence of alternative trans- and homosexualities of other cultures, and rewritten the same-gender relationships of history in support of their claims. Close, platonic male-male friendships such as that of the Bible’s David and Jonathan and that of Achilles and Patroclus from classical Greek literature are ret-conned as gay relationships, and this aggressive piracy of heterosexual male role-models discourages these kind of ennobling friendships between straight men, arguably causing much of the dysfunction in many contemporary male-male and male-female relationships**.
The part that really fucks me off is that the public endorsement of the binary sexual model secures rights and recognition for the most politically and economically powerful group in the queer community, who then abandon all those that mainstream society deems less acceptable, most notably the transgendered and intersexed, and to a lesser extent the bisexual and asexual. The gay rights movement and media give lip-service to diversity while it is politically expedient for them to do so until it is not, and then they simply erase us from the debate. Gay rights activists tend to forget that recognition of their rights was first won at Stonewall, not by themselves, but by the transgender community.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying I don’t like gay people, and I’m not saying that identifying as gay is inherently bad. By all means, use the word if you feel it best represents your sexuality, but be aware that it is loaded with ideology and its use has very real implications for those queer people who don’t so easily fit into the binary model of sexuality. If you’re going to be gay, be a good gay, own it, be proud of it, and don’t be manipulated by the-powers-that-be. Make it yours. Most importantly, don’t forget to look out for your queer brothers and sisters, ‘cos you sure as hell didn’t win your rights by yourself.
DannyR
Star Trek: Boldly Going... Somewhere Else?
Directed by J.J. Abrams, Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Eric Bana, Leonard Nimoy, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin & John Cho
Grade C.
SPOILERS BELOW!!
Bright, shiny, fast, loud and contrived: this is Star Trek for people who’ve never watched Star Trek. It’s the kind of bland Hollywood summer blockbuster that we’re seeing so much of these days, and you just know it’s gonna be popular.
If you’re a long-term fan, your reaction to this movie will fall somewhere between disappointment and outrage. I’m not going to get into how the plot casually erases the entire history of the galaxy as established by 40 years of previous Trek films and TV series, and I’m not going to whinge about the often staggering coincidences and plot holes that abound throughout. I want to talk about characterisation, atmosphere, ambiance. Now sure, I’m biased, but I’d like to point out that I went with a friend who’s never been interested in Star Trek, and he said the movie just failed to make him care about any of the characters or the story. So I’m not alone here.
Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk was perhaps the biggest disappointment. He was a poor choice for the role, his face is babyish rather than classically handsome and he lacks the arrogant, brooding presence that William Shatner brought to the character. What the film-makers really failed to grasp is that the original Star Trek was about a swaggering, macho ladies’ man and his sweet ride, a guy who cruises into town, starts a brawl, saves the day and rides of into the sunset, leaving a trail of broken hearts behind him. Compared to Shatner’s Kirk, Pine’s character is something of a joke.
And what of said sweet ride? The Enterprise was attractive, despite my initial misgivings about the changes to its iconic design, but it certainly didn’t inspire the sense of awe that previous incarnations have. We’re supposed to be blown away by this ship, it’s supposed to be the most advanced and powerful vessel in the galaxy, but it’s onscreen for perhaps two minutes in total in the entire film. Maybe the film-makers cut its scenes, given the violent fan reactions to leaked pictures of the design over the past year. They certainly didn’t give the new ship the loving, slow reveal that past films have lavished on it. In fact in terms of action and on-screen presence, it was completely displaced by another little craft.
Another essential ingredient of Trek has always been the relationship between Kirk and first officer Spock. The film-makers did make a decent attempt to capture this dynamic, but just didn’t quite get it right. It feels forced, like they’re trying to recreate the chemistry of the original characters without going through any sort of process to make it happen. One minute Kirk and Spock hate each other, the next they’re best friends. Zachary Quinto certainly looked the part as Spock, but had none of the dignity and solemnity of Leonard Nimoy’s portrayal of the character. This is especially obvious as Nimoy is actually in the movie as well, playing an older Spock.
Eric Bana as vengeful Romulan Nero was intimidating to look at, but oddly soft-spoken, and I have to say he has possibly the most ridiculous motivation for causing mayhem I've ever come across in Star Trek. His home planet Romulus and everyone on it is about to be wiped out by a supernova, distant cousins the Vulcans try to help save the planet by creating a black hole to divert the solar flare and in the process destroy the very planet they're trying to save, and accidentally send Nero and his cronies two hundred years back in time. Nero arrives in the earlier era, and rather than go and see the planet he thought he'd lost forever, and perhaps become the hero of his people, he goes on a vendetta against the Federation (who, as enemies of the Romulan Empire, were under no obligation to save Romulus but tried anyway), planning to blow up the Feds one planet at a time, beginning with Vulcan and then moving on to Earth, naturally. The whole thing is just a convoluted way for writers and producers to press the 'reset' button and start fresh with only the bits of Trek they want to retain, consigning the rest to the interstellar dustbin.
What of the supporting cast? I can't deny Simon Pegg as Scotty was great fun but he was largely absent from the film (arriving fully halfway through in another ludicrous coincidence) and didn’t do anything much to save the day, as he used to in the original TV series and the movies based on it. He was basically reduced to comic relief status, though perhaps that’s to be expected, given Pegg’s previous films. John Cho as Hikaru Sulu was pretty kick-ass, and did seem to have some of the fire that the original actor brought to the role, but I couldn't quite accept him in the part, he just looks so different. Still, I expect he will continue to be sheer awesome in future films, cos I can guarantee there's at least two in the works even now.
Anton Yelchin playing young math-genius Chekov was funny, but I rather take issue with how the film-makers took what is essentially a supporting role and greatly expanded it, arguably at the expense of Uhura’s place in the ensemble, leaving her with nothing to do but look pretty and kiss Spock a couple of times (no real change there then). This was particularly disappointing, as a great deal was made of her talents and achievements in the early part of the film, and then the film utterly fails to build on these. NZ's own Karl Urban as Dr ‘Bones’ McCoy was the standout performer, he alone seemed to have really captured the essence of the original character.
Stylistically, this take on one of SciFi’s oldest and most loved franchises owes a lot to the resurrected Battlestar Galactica TV series, there’s a lot of shaky hand-held camera work and a real military feel to the character interactions interspersed with short, silent space shots. Maybe this has something to do with my feeling as I sat there that this isn’t Star Trek – past Trek films have revelled in elaborate space battles replete with the clamouring of titanic explosions and pounding drums. The film-makers have incorporated a lot of those recognisable little details from the original series – gun and uniform designs and colours, tinny sound effects – which bring on nerdgasms among the faithful, and there are plenty of little in-jokes, but the total effect is of pastiche or parody rather than a genuine continuation of the franchise. I think it’s telling that Galaxy Quest, an actual parody, feels more like Star Trek than this new film does.
This movie will undoubtedly draw a new generation of fans to the Star Trek universe, and perhaps rekindle enthusiasm for past incarnations of the show, but I can’t help feeling that the future of the franchise will be a lot less rich, a lot more formulaic and more reliant on cheap thrills and jokes than on decent storytelling and characterisation.
DannyR
This movie will undoubtedly draw a new generation of fans to the Star Trek universe, and perhaps rekindle enthusiasm for past incarnations of the show, but I can’t help feeling that the future of the franchise will be a lot less rich, a lot more formulaic and more reliant on cheap thrills and jokes than on decent storytelling and characterisation.
DannyR
Friday, May 8, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
My Momma Said...
An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which she carried across her neck.
One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.
At the end of the long walks from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full.
For a full two years this went on daily, with the woman bringing home only one and a half pots of water.
Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments.
But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do.
After two years of what it perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream.
'I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house.'
The old woman smiled, 'Did you notice that there are flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other pot's side?'
'That's because I have always known about your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you water them.'
'For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table.
Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house.'
Each of us has our own unique flaw. But it's the cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives together so very interesting and rewarding.
You've just got to take each person for what they are and look for the good in them.
SO, to all of my crackpot friends, have a great day and remember to smell the flowers on your side of the path!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Science vs Religion
Heart
I guess I just care too much...