fDanielle has 14 post(s)

In her article “Affective Economies,” Sara Ahmed explains how our emotions ties us to different communities in society and how emotions are a cultural practice rather than a psychological disposition. For example, in the beginning of her piece she talks about the mixed race couple, the rapist and child molester, immigrants and foreigners and their relationship towards the ordinary (the white nationalist, the white farmer, the white Christian, the white working man and the white housewives). We see that in society “white” is seen as ordinary and everyone else that doesn’t fit that description are viewed as “others” and are separated into different circles. In an excerpt from the Aryan Nations she explains how the emotions of love and hate shows the boundaries between the individual subject and the nation. She explains how the white “ordinary” feels endangered by the “other’ because of their fear of losing something. So, it is suggested that their love of their nation is what prompts them to hate anyone that posed a threat. When she discusses the speech on asylum seekers given by William Hague, she explains that the repetition of “sticky words” can generate an emotional response from people. These are words that are sort of powerful and unforgettable. So using those same words will evoke a certain response for the public. She supports this by showing how the current British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, used the same “sticky words” as Hague and still brought about the same implications. Hague used words like “flood” and “swamped” to associate asylums and the loss of control and “dirt” and “sewage”, to portray the anxiety of being “overwhelmed” by potential proximity of others. Blunkett these words to describe the effect that children of asylum seekers would have if they were taught by local schools. However, he was criticized and replaced overwhelmed. Although it may seen that “overwhelmed” cleared up the implication of “swamped” it still evoked the sensation of being overtaken by “others”. Ahmed says that by doing this the nations was constructed as a subject that couldn’t cope with the presence of “others”. Therefore, the “others” are a threat to the nation as a whole (Ahmed, 122).

In her article “ Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?,” Lila Abu-Lughod explains that Muslim women, especially Afghan women were being mobilized as symbols in the War on Terrorism. She explains that people in the West somehow believes that by gaining insight into the culture of the Middle East, the religious beliefs, and the way women are treated, they will unlock the information they need to combat the War on Terrorism. In a speech that she gave Laura Bush said that the War on Terrorism was also a war to fight for women’s rights (in countries where women aren’t as liberated like the West). One of the main topics of discussion was the burqa. Many believe that the burqa was a sign of oppression of Muslim women. It was view was the ultimate sign of oppression of Afghan women under the Taliban government, and Americans wanted to “save” these women. However, even after being free from Taliban rule, Muslim women still went about with coverings. What Abu-Lughod is trying to get Westerners to understand is that there is a difference in culture. People dress differently in different societal communities. These women wear different types of covering voluntarily, as it is their way of respecting and honoring their culture. Americans and others who want to “save” these women use the burqa and other cultural coverings as an excuse to have their presence in a country there their interest lies. Abu- Lughod explains that we need to learn to accept differences and move toward a society that seeks to end global injustices. Abu-Lughod says in order to accept differences we need to be able to see that Americans can’t just want Afghan women to be just like use. Westerners need to understand that what we want for them after liberation may not be the same things they want for themselves. Also, there may me different ideas about justice and the future so we should be mindful of the rhetoric used when talking about “saving” people. She criticized the way Laura Bush categorized Afghan women as someone that needs saving (by American troops). She says to imply that you are saving someone, you have to be saving them from something. She compares these current statements about saving “others” to those of the 19th century and says that they are the exact same sentiments worded differently. Abu-Lughod says that we need to seek to find ways to help create a world that is better for everyone.

In Cabezas’ “ Between Love and Money,” she adds to the dialogue concerning sex tourism and citizenship. The Caribbean has a very strong tourism industry and with relation to her research Cabezas show how tourism promotes sex. Cabezas did her research in Cuba and the Dominican Republic where those in the hospitality and resort industry like chambermaids and beach boys engage in sexual relations with foreigners. Having a sexual relationship with and accepting gifts from these tourists became a source of extra income to support their families for these workers that have meager wages. A lot of “sex workers” don’t like to accept money from tourist but rather accept gifts or even offer to pay sometimes in an effort to disassociate themselves with the prostitution or in the hope of the relationship blossoming into something more. Some of the people Cabezas interviewed said they hoped to have a long lasting romance with frequent visits and even a marriage proposal with would in turn lead to migration. In regards to citizenship, the social condemnation of some sexual practices and the heterosexual patriarchal structure in Cuba creates “partial citizens”. The state actively controls the sexuality of women. Cabezas argues that sexual citizenship- public life is no longer dominated by heterosexual males, but rather based on gender and sexual diversity- will allow for a society where people who don’t conform to the heteronormativity of today’s society to have control and responsibility over their own sexual lives. Sexuality also complicate traditional views on nationality because when we usually talk about nationality we are referring to a person or group of people belonging to a specific country. However, because of sex tourism, people with the same nationality are segregated. Cabezas writes that lighter skinned Cubans are able to be receptionists and at the front desk of resorts when tourists enter but dark-skinned Cubans are performers (which gives of a very sensual notion to tourists) or are back-kitchen workers. Also, mulata Cubans are automatically labeled “sex worker” if seen with a foreigner while a lighter-skinned Cuban who dates a foreigner is not. Darker skinned people in the Dominican Republic also run the risk of being arrested for prostitution if they are caught in touristy areas alone while their light-skinned counterparts who may engage in prostitution are not viewed in the same light. So although one may be of the same nationality; race, class and skin color does influence the general population’s perception.

In “Global Care Crisis,” authors Arlie Hochschild, Sambasivan Uma Devi, and Lise Widding Isaksen explain that each year there is a steady increase in the number of women migrants. These women are moving far away from their families and taking jobs as caretakers, nannies, maids and nurses in order to help provide for their families. Women migrate to the North to countries where the economy is better which leaves the south with no skilled workers and limited resources. The idea of the commons is being a part of a whole. The authors insist that a capitalistic view lacks the opportunity from people to live as a part of a community. They believe that just as the capitalism that developed wore away the commons in 18th century Europe, the same is occurring in respect to the North’s economic wellbeing destroying the commons of the south. We see this because one of the consequences of a mother migrating away is that the relationship between her and her children shifts. Although she may be able to support her children financially, she cannot nurture and support them emotionally and mentally. These are important features to a child’s development. The mother is the primary caregiver in a household so her absence distorts family relations because now that responsibility belongs to the father, who might neglect to exhibit these characteristics. Migrant women sacrifice a lot for the potential well being of their family but what is not seen is how their children react. They may question why their mother left them and even have resentment towards their absentee mothers. These children would also have lower grades than children living with both parents. They feel lonely, sad and confused. What I found to be troubling was that the well-being of the markets in the North depended on migrant women leaving their families to bestow their natural caregiver instincts on other people that are not their kin; not because they wanted to, but because they had to. Especially because leaving their families behind came with public shame. They were deemed bad mothers or materialistic although they too didn’t want to be separated. They wanted a better life for their kids and migrating for a job was the way they knew how to ensure that life.

There have been countless times that I have felt like an outsider in my life and a lot of those experiences are too personal to share. Growing up, my mother was very strict about the education of me and my siblings. We would always have to have a two books on hand when we were going out- in case we finished one, we’d always have another one. We’d also always have to write weekly book reports, do our homework before anything social, review all the material for school and read ahead so we’d always know what was coming next. This strict regimen that I had to follow didn’t help me in elementary school. Going to a predominantly black school I would fit in perfectly. However, I was labeled an “oreo” by the rest of my classmates.The thought process what this: I was black on the outside because of my skin tone but white on the inside because of the way I carried myself. I didn’t use slang, I liked to read, I played the violin, I prefer classical, rock, alternative, jazz, pop, and country music to hip hop and rap, I took ballroom and tap dancing, outside of school I hung out with people with different backgrounds, I preferred converse to jordan’s and my clothes were from L.L Bean rather than whatever was popular back then. I didn’t have many friends, but I did have my twin sister, with whom I’d hang out with at lunch. Some of the friends I had before brushed me off as if they didn’t know me and snickered along with all the other kids in my class. Sometimes, they even got physical, which resulted in countless trips to the nurse’s office. I felt like an outsider because the one group of people that I thought was suppose to accept me, rejected me. My classmates talked to me when they needed me to help them with their work or when they wanted some of the snacks my mom packed for me in my lunchbox. I felt like I didn’t belong and my only escape for a long time was staying with my teachers, going to the nurse, or waiting for my mom to pick me up after school.

Patricia Hill-Collins’s believes these kinds of experiences can teach us that we could learn about oppression and sociality through shared experiences. She explains that although individuals may have different perspectives on specific experience, a group of people who have experienced the same thing will have common perceptions. But, with different factors such as age, sexuality, class, or education shaping an individual’s life, there will be different views of the commonalities shares within the group. She also says that once you are aware that you are being oppressed, you can validate a proper response to being oppressed. You are able to take control and affect the outcome of your experiences.

In Part 4. Chapter 4: Periodization, Foucault says that where wa a new technology of sex in that it was independent from the holy, religious establishment it was always associated with, but remained defenseless with its connection to sin. In the 18th century, sex was not only a nonreligious concern, but a social one through interests in the medical fields, economics and people wanting to teach sex as an academic subject. In the 18th century, the advancement in the medical field was the cause for interests of the sexual lives of women, children and married couples. In the 19th century, people in the medical field who studies sex connected it to pervasion. They believed that sexual pervasion was hereditary and it was dangerous to society. They believed that is this “disease” was not contained future generations could be at risk so they were led to create pervasion medicines and eugenics programs. It was believed that by having an ancestry with numerous illness and sickness, helped produce a sexual pervert. Foucault then explains that the pervasion- heredity- degenerescence system of society at the time did not coincide with the repressive theory of the discourse of sexuality. He says that if that was the case then young men and the working class would be subjected to scrutiny, but not the bourgeoise. Foucault says that the bourgeoisie were careful in protecting their own sexualities, not for economic growth, but so that their family line was pure. This is why the aristocrats were so interested in the sexualities of women and children. They believed that their sexuality was something very valuable and important. I think Foucault is trying to show us that sexuality is somewhat of a social construct and something that can be regulated. As we see, sexuality used to be controlled by the church, but it then became a way aristocrats exerted their power over the lower and working class. The bourgeois didn’t want eliminate sex, but saw its importance in ensuring a healthy future for their ruling family. It was a source of domination for the ruling class.

In part one of his book, The History of Sexuality, Michel Foucault explains that sexuality was not something discussed and there were very strict guidelines people followed in regards to sexuality. Foucault describes how sexual practices before the seventeenth century were quite casual and there was no shame about the practice. However, in the seventeenth century with this new Victorian regime, everything became more rigid and oppressive. Sexuality could no longer be practiced outside the home, more specifically, the parents’ bedroom. Sex became a private matter that no one talked about aloud anymore. It became a taboo subject. Foucault says that in this way, sexuality became repressed. He then shifts to discuss how brothels and mental institutions became the places for illicit and unconventional sexualities. These were the places where people were not restricted to acts of sex unlike the puritan outside world around them. Foucault discusses the belief that the bourgeois order repressed sexuality because of the dawn of capitalism that also blossomed during that time period. The popular idea was that sex was incompatible with a rapidly increasing and vital work order. Foucault does not agree with this notion, and thinks that the repression of sexuality is a part of a political cause. Foucault says that a reason we define the relationship of sex and power in terms of repression is that if sex is repressed, then the fact that someone dare talk about it looks like they’re committing a wrongdoing. This person is just striving to be different and not conforming to social norms by disrupting the established rule. He says that people are eager to speak out sex because it’s sort of an opportunity to speak out against those in power.

Question 1: How were the puritan ideas of sexual practices enforced in the 17th century? What is something civilians conformed to or where there strict policies put in place and what were the repercussions?
Question 2: How would Foucault’s argument about sexuality tie into modern day debates about homosexuality?

In her essay “ Eating the other,” bell hooks describes the relationship between white people and colored people. The “other” that hooks refers to are people of color. The other include monitory groups like Blacks, Asians, Native Americans and Hispanics. These groups are exploited in a society dominated by white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. In her essay, hooks says that “others” are seen as something to be desired. Minorities are seen as exotic in the eyes of their white counterparts. A prime example of this view is shown as hooks recounts a conversation she overheard a group of white male students having about sleeping with as many girls from different racial and ethnic groups as they can before graduation (hooks, 368). By fetishisizing sexual encounters with women (or men) of different ethnic/racial groups, they are expecting something different from what they’re use to. They fantasize that they will have a sort of extraordinary pleasure that they’ve never experienced before in their interactions with the “other.” They assume that those that are not like them are more experienced and worldly. hooks explains that in western culture, whiteness is standard and normal and therefore the normalization of whiteness leads to the commodification of “the others.” The commodification of “otherness” enriches the lives of those who are dominant in society by adding a sort of excitement from the mainstream white culture. She says that the culture of minority groups serve as an “alternative playground” for the dominating race to affirm their power (hooks, 367). The relationship with “otherness” is productive because the culture of “otherness” is advertised in such a way that makes it appealing to those of all races and backgrounds. Advertisements find a way to portray “otherness” that entices white Americans. The sense of “otherness” doesn’t align with the status quo so it becomes unique and captivating to white Americans. They are motivated to explore their curiosities about black culture and they acquire pleasure by getting “a bit of the other.”

C.J. Pascoe opens the first chapter of her book by recalling an skit that was performed at River High School’s Mr. Cougar Assembly. The skit seemed to offer the definition of masculinity accepted by the students and faculty at River High School, which is this idea of being heterosexual and having physical strength. The skit proved that having a high pitch voice and female clothing on the male body was viewed as humorous and emasculating since everyone erupted in laughter. On the other hand, the female gym teacher in the skit lifting weights recieved cheers, as she was showing her masculinity. In Chapter 2, Pascoe says that the curriculum at River High teaches students to follow normative heterosexual practices, discouraging homosexuality. She also explains how the school board had a sort of contradictory idea about sex- education since they don’t want to explicitly teach it because they don’t want students to engage in sexual activities yet they are so interested in the sexual lives of their students. One of the teachers mentioned, Ms. Mac had a great reputation with her students especially because of her curiosity about their romantic relationships. On one particular instance, she teased friends Angela and Jeremy about being couple of the year (Pascoe, 2007: 32). She contributes to the school’s encouragement of heterosexual romantic relations because she took what is a cross-gender friendship and paired Angela and Jeremy up as if they were a couple. She admired this because it pushed the school’s agenda of discouraging homosexuality. To me, this school’s policies are quite disturbing because they are not trying to be inclusive towards all students and they are forcing students to fit in to a certain mold rather than trying to make and educational institution a safe space for everyone. Ms. Mac had also assigned a class project and one of the groups creates the Safer Sex Party and handed out condoms, their reason being to prevent HIV and AIDS. Ms. Mac went around and collected all the condoms, and saying that she could lose her job because of the distribution of them in her class. Pascoe explains that the condom was a cultural object which signified the importance of heterosexual activity to masculine identities (Pascoe, 2007: 34-35). This whole situation was strange and upsetting to me. Ms. Mac was more concerned about losing her job than proud of the fact that her students were being responsible sexual agents, in wanting to practice safe sex. Also, the student distributing the condoms got them from the Planned Parenthood Office which is in the school so the school board is full of contradictions. Why have condoms available if you don’t want students to use them? The school want to push their heterosexual relations agenda onto the students while also keeping the topic of sexuality taboo which makes absolutely no sense.

In the works of Morgan and Davis, there seems to be a tremendous amount of importance in the concept of labor. Davis explains that first and foremost, slaves were viewed as economic property. Slave women particularly, were not considered wives and mothers. This idea is reiterated in Morgan’s work when she mentions that many Africans were enslaved and brought to the Americas to do forced labor through the the Transatlantic slave trade. Both women touched upon the fact that women were valuable because not only could they perform manual labor, but they were also useful for reproductive labor.
With respect to manual labor, the slave system knew no gender. In her work, Davis explains that women toiled in the same field alongside men from sunup to sundown. They were not subjected to preferential treatment even if they were pregnant or had a young child. They still had to work in the field while caring for their infants. In respect to their reproductive labor, slave owners sought out to guarantee that their “breeders” would produce children quite often (Davis, 1981:12). Morgan speaks on the common misconception made by European settlers that Africans and Native people were made to do manual labor. Race and the “monstrous nature of the African and Native females body played a big role in this conclusion of white superiority. In their writings, a few of the European explorers Morgan mentions talks about how African females had long sagging breasts and that would hang down to the ground and that was the reason they were nothing but laborer and reproducers.
Another point that bridges the works of Morgan and Davis is that they describe how Europeans and Slave owners alike tried to justify forced labor. More specifically with reference to the female body, they both described the common view of the masculine features of the African female and how that equated to physical labor. They also elaborated that in contrast, the white female body was viewed as dainty and feminine, therefore, they were not equipped to do manual labor. Morgan and Davis focuses on the concept of labor and its role in the lives of enslaved people.