The use of satire questions the “status quo,” which is defined as the current state of existing affairs. Power is deeply rooted in the status quo; perhaps, satire is criticized for this very reason. In other words, the people in power prefer to preserve the current state of being, because they have control over society. Consequently, these authoritative beings lash out when others attempt to defy the status quo, as their power is threatened. I argue that the performance of satire is a way to challenge the existing condition, bring about social change, and question those in power.
Performing satire is a way to communicate the need for transformation. It is a critical intervention that seeks to alter society. While written satire is an effective catalyst for change, I believe that the performance of this genre is more persuasive in that it catches our attention. When we read discourse, it may be more difficult to grasp the severity and importance of the agenda the source is pushing for. A performance can be more influential, as a visual stimulus has more of an intense and lasting impact. Likewise, when a person can actually experience reenactments of the status quo through satirical means, he or she is forced to face our cultural inadequacies. Today, animated shows such as South Park, Family Guy, and The Simpsons challenge hierarchy and cultural defectiveness.
South Park in particular, is one of the most satirical and controversial shows to ever air. The cartoon utilizes irony, sarcasm, and outrage in order to point out problems within pop culture. In my opinion, the show is an intervention that invites you to be a part of a group, which means that you are “in” on the hidden meaning behind the obvious plot. As a result, people begin to discuss the show and its objective, which at least aides in the recognition of social problems. Change begins with discussion; thus, South Park is influential for this reason. I have included a link to a South Park YouTube clip below, which satirizes the obsession with Facebook and the website’s consequences. I also have included a link that demonstrates how much the South Park creators despise the “status quo.” To say the least, they authenticate how much society reifies the existing condition. For me, this show is an effective catalyst for change, because it is the children not the adults who defy and point out the problems with the existing condition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqCOFcOZBNA
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/210218/?searchterm=dance
Furthermore, with the creation of mass media, performers of satire have a golden opportunity to aide in social change by reaching a large number of people. From the development of television, to the vast number of websites that stream video, critics of mainstream society have the liberty to subvert in a subliminal manner. Attacking social issues and power through the manipulation of facts unmasks the hypocrisy and self-serving notions of reality imposed by dominant cultures. Thus, it is through satirical subversive methods, that one may experience a shock of recognition. A shocking revelation can spike discussion, analysis, criticism, strong feelings, and action. Perhaps, the more atrocious the satire appears to be, the more people will discuss, which ultimately leads to social change.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Anti-theatrical prejudice embedded in patriarchy
What were the roots of the strong anti-theatrical prejudice extant in pre-Civil War America? why was even theater attendance considered improper for women?
Theaters negative reputation during the Victorian era stemmed from its association with sex and sexual display throughout history. Prior to the Victorian age, sex was viewed as both an appropriate display and topic of discussion outside the sanctity of marriage. However, the Victorians, obsessed with puritan ideals, accepted the preconceived stereotypes of actors and particularly actresses to condemn the group. In the following essay I will identify some of the historical contexts that contributed to the Victorians disapproval of actresses and explain why even theater attendance was considered improper for women of the era.
Theaters developed during the era of Shakespeare have historically been associated with prostitution, as brothels were next door to the theater. Consequently, the theater became known as a place where sex prevails behind the curtain and where the prostitution market prospers. Also, during the times of ancient Rome women performers made twice as much prostituting then non-performing women. The affiliation between prostitution and theater, thus, convinced Victorians that the terms "prostitute" and "actress" were synonymous.
Actresses were also compared to prostitutes, because they wore unconventional clothes and make-up, that were viewed as promiscuous for the Victorian Era. The same comparison was made between the two groups in regards to the gestures they utilized, which were not considered respectable. Though I believe that some Victorians truly believed that the connection between actresses and prostitutes existed, I think that this rhetorical argument was used as a device to constrain women from gaining social power. We have to remember that individuals in power tend to oppress those that are underprivileged. They hope to keep their power by keeping individuals in an ignorant state. Thus, the men in power (the privileged class) attempted to persuade women that they should not attend theatrical events.
"Women are fragile creatures. They may be susceptible to improper influence if women view a show with actresses," a Victorian might say. Most Victorian men would agree, "women ought to be at home caring to their domestic duties as a good woman should." These are both arguments embedded in the Victorian culture. Perhaps the privileged class was frightened that if women were exposed to the sexual and intellectual nature of these actresses, they would be on the road to gaining cultural freedom. Consequently, economic freedom may emerge later on for women, which would prohibit the ruling class from exerting their power and influence over females.
Theaters negative reputation during the Victorian era stemmed from its association with sex and sexual display throughout history. Prior to the Victorian age, sex was viewed as both an appropriate display and topic of discussion outside the sanctity of marriage. However, the Victorians, obsessed with puritan ideals, accepted the preconceived stereotypes of actors and particularly actresses to condemn the group. In the following essay I will identify some of the historical contexts that contributed to the Victorians disapproval of actresses and explain why even theater attendance was considered improper for women of the era.
Theaters developed during the era of Shakespeare have historically been associated with prostitution, as brothels were next door to the theater. Consequently, the theater became known as a place where sex prevails behind the curtain and where the prostitution market prospers. Also, during the times of ancient Rome women performers made twice as much prostituting then non-performing women. The affiliation between prostitution and theater, thus, convinced Victorians that the terms "prostitute" and "actress" were synonymous.
Actresses were also compared to prostitutes, because they wore unconventional clothes and make-up, that were viewed as promiscuous for the Victorian Era. The same comparison was made between the two groups in regards to the gestures they utilized, which were not considered respectable. Though I believe that some Victorians truly believed that the connection between actresses and prostitutes existed, I think that this rhetorical argument was used as a device to constrain women from gaining social power. We have to remember that individuals in power tend to oppress those that are underprivileged. They hope to keep their power by keeping individuals in an ignorant state. Thus, the men in power (the privileged class) attempted to persuade women that they should not attend theatrical events.
"Women are fragile creatures. They may be susceptible to improper influence if women view a show with actresses," a Victorian might say. Most Victorian men would agree, "women ought to be at home caring to their domestic duties as a good woman should." These are both arguments embedded in the Victorian culture. Perhaps the privileged class was frightened that if women were exposed to the sexual and intellectual nature of these actresses, they would be on the road to gaining cultural freedom. Consequently, economic freedom may emerge later on for women, which would prohibit the ruling class from exerting their power and influence over females.
A Fine-Tuned Persona = Success
Why were first person narratives by female authors considered inappropriate? How did Mowatt get around this difficulty in her autobiography? What sort of successful strategies of self-creation did she employ?
During the Victorian Age women were viewed as porcelain dolls; fragile and delicate creatures who were incapable of engaging in intellectual discussion. Anna Cora Mowatt; however, was unique in that she used her rhetorical skills to subliminally convince her audience that she (a woman) was deserving of her own autobiography as both an intellect and a virtuous Victorian woman. In the following essay I will delve into the reasons why first person narratives by Victorian female authors were considered inappropriate, how Mowatt overcame these prejudices, and the strategies that she utilized in order to develop an accepted persona.
When an individual writes an autobiography, him or her tends to write in first person. Using the word "I" conveys the idea that the individual has knowledge of importance; consequently, Victorian women had difficulties persuading others to take them seriously. What superior knowledge could a woman possess? The only information that women were expected to understand/employ was knowledge of domestic matters (i.e. morality, virtue, being a good wife). Anna Cora Mowatt, who was a "spin doctor" of her time, used rhetorical strategies that aided in her effectiveness as a writer, actress, and public reader. I believe the successful impact of these strategies, signifies the importance of rhetorical studies in our education system.
First, Mowatt overcame the difficulties of writing as a woman in the Victorian Ages by giving solid, believable, and acceptable reasons for writing. More specifically, she developed a persona that was direct, sincere, and humble. When a woman is living in patriarchal times, she has to learn to be creative when attempting to convince her audience. Mowatt found a medium between self-denial and self-expression so that she could get her point across in a sympathetic (but not egotistical) manner. For example, Mowatt asked the readers at the end of her autobiography whether she had bad grammar and whether she was too egotistical. Perhaps leaving the reader with a feeling of humbleness, convinced her audience that she was deserving of this opportunity, as she preserved her feminine persona.
Likewise, Mowatt did not associate herself with the feminist movement taking place at the time to avoid discredit. In my opinion, her dismissal of the women's movement played the biggest role in her success. Because Victorians were prude and patriarchal, women had to assume a subordinate role to be taken seriously, particularly because men were their only chance to be heard. Associating herself with the new group of feminists would have killed her career. Nevertheless, Mowatt did not abandon all that she stood for, she merely maintained a feminine nature while stressing the importance of intellectual/professional accomplishments and the social/moral respectability of actresses. Thus, the writer picked her battles, giving in on some to achieve success as a Victorian woman living in oppressive times.
During the Victorian Age women were viewed as porcelain dolls; fragile and delicate creatures who were incapable of engaging in intellectual discussion. Anna Cora Mowatt; however, was unique in that she used her rhetorical skills to subliminally convince her audience that she (a woman) was deserving of her own autobiography as both an intellect and a virtuous Victorian woman. In the following essay I will delve into the reasons why first person narratives by Victorian female authors were considered inappropriate, how Mowatt overcame these prejudices, and the strategies that she utilized in order to develop an accepted persona.
When an individual writes an autobiography, him or her tends to write in first person. Using the word "I" conveys the idea that the individual has knowledge of importance; consequently, Victorian women had difficulties persuading others to take them seriously. What superior knowledge could a woman possess? The only information that women were expected to understand/employ was knowledge of domestic matters (i.e. morality, virtue, being a good wife). Anna Cora Mowatt, who was a "spin doctor" of her time, used rhetorical strategies that aided in her effectiveness as a writer, actress, and public reader. I believe the successful impact of these strategies, signifies the importance of rhetorical studies in our education system.
First, Mowatt overcame the difficulties of writing as a woman in the Victorian Ages by giving solid, believable, and acceptable reasons for writing. More specifically, she developed a persona that was direct, sincere, and humble. When a woman is living in patriarchal times, she has to learn to be creative when attempting to convince her audience. Mowatt found a medium between self-denial and self-expression so that she could get her point across in a sympathetic (but not egotistical) manner. For example, Mowatt asked the readers at the end of her autobiography whether she had bad grammar and whether she was too egotistical. Perhaps leaving the reader with a feeling of humbleness, convinced her audience that she was deserving of this opportunity, as she preserved her feminine persona.
Likewise, Mowatt did not associate herself with the feminist movement taking place at the time to avoid discredit. In my opinion, her dismissal of the women's movement played the biggest role in her success. Because Victorians were prude and patriarchal, women had to assume a subordinate role to be taken seriously, particularly because men were their only chance to be heard. Associating herself with the new group of feminists would have killed her career. Nevertheless, Mowatt did not abandon all that she stood for, she merely maintained a feminine nature while stressing the importance of intellectual/professional accomplishments and the social/moral respectability of actresses. Thus, the writer picked her battles, giving in on some to achieve success as a Victorian woman living in oppressive times.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Corpus Chrisit Feast Extravaganza
1. What was the socio-cultural function of the feasts of Corpus Christi? How did these festivals serve as celebrations of "the body?" What socio-political groups interests were served by the festivities?
The feast of Corpus Christi was a grand annual celebration that honored the body of Christ during the middle ages. Though the event was historical in nature, literary and performance scholars (more than historians) have noted the feast's effects on medieval culture. In this essay, I will discuss the socio-cultural function of the feasts. I will also look at how the festivals served as celebrations of "the body" and what socio-political groups interests were served by the feasts.
The feast of Corpus Christi allowed citizens to express a social bond, which contributes to social integration. In other words, the feast aided in creating communitas, the sense of sharing and intimacy that develops among persons who experience liminality as a group. Moreover, Corpus Christi lured people of all status; thus, all occupations were honored (from the peasants to the nobles). This inclusive participation allowed everyone to enjoy the feast, network, and engage in human bonding, which is important to the human psyche. The ritual also placed great importance on celebrating "the body."
The Corpus Christi feasts celebrated the body of Christ. In this context, the term "body" refers to the relationship between the self and the supernatural. In addition to the secular importance, the "body" may have also had social relevance. The ritual was utilized as a way to disentangle social differentation; thus, the masses both affirmed and created the symbol of the social body, which was the body of Christ. Through engaging in this commemorative and social occasion, I believe many of the lower status groups received the opportunity to move up the social ladder.
The middle class (or the gilds) during the era of Corpus Christi reaped the benefits of social mobility. Since this time in history marked the beginning of the middle class, gilds were more equipped to develop famous dramatic cycles that might be recognized by the wealthy. Likewise, a large event such as the Corpus Christi may have brought forth an abundance of commercial activity, which is helpful to both the community (urban markets) and individual working towards upward mobility. Finally, the feast made networking more easily accessible, as the celebration enticed the elite.
In conclusion, the feast of Corpus Christi was a celebration that aided in developing social togetherness. The secular undertone of celebrating the "body of Christ" in combination with the feelings of communitas during the festivities lead to opportunities of advancement in society. My question is: Where can you witness such an event today? How can the middle class advance in society when the middle class is disappearing?
The feast of Corpus Christi was a grand annual celebration that honored the body of Christ during the middle ages. Though the event was historical in nature, literary and performance scholars (more than historians) have noted the feast's effects on medieval culture. In this essay, I will discuss the socio-cultural function of the feasts. I will also look at how the festivals served as celebrations of "the body" and what socio-political groups interests were served by the feasts.
The feast of Corpus Christi allowed citizens to express a social bond, which contributes to social integration. In other words, the feast aided in creating communitas, the sense of sharing and intimacy that develops among persons who experience liminality as a group. Moreover, Corpus Christi lured people of all status; thus, all occupations were honored (from the peasants to the nobles). This inclusive participation allowed everyone to enjoy the feast, network, and engage in human bonding, which is important to the human psyche. The ritual also placed great importance on celebrating "the body."
The Corpus Christi feasts celebrated the body of Christ. In this context, the term "body" refers to the relationship between the self and the supernatural. In addition to the secular importance, the "body" may have also had social relevance. The ritual was utilized as a way to disentangle social differentation; thus, the masses both affirmed and created the symbol of the social body, which was the body of Christ. Through engaging in this commemorative and social occasion, I believe many of the lower status groups received the opportunity to move up the social ladder.
The middle class (or the gilds) during the era of Corpus Christi reaped the benefits of social mobility. Since this time in history marked the beginning of the middle class, gilds were more equipped to develop famous dramatic cycles that might be recognized by the wealthy. Likewise, a large event such as the Corpus Christi may have brought forth an abundance of commercial activity, which is helpful to both the community (urban markets) and individual working towards upward mobility. Finally, the feast made networking more easily accessible, as the celebration enticed the elite.
In conclusion, the feast of Corpus Christi was a celebration that aided in developing social togetherness. The secular undertone of celebrating the "body of Christ" in combination with the feelings of communitas during the festivities lead to opportunities of advancement in society. My question is: Where can you witness such an event today? How can the middle class advance in society when the middle class is disappearing?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Greeks
The Rhapsodes performed Homeric poems in different colored robes and were accompanied by a staff (used to beat the rhythym of the verse). Whether the Rhapsodes sang or spoke, we still are unclear of that fact. Most scholars (Hargis & Lentz) determined that they were song-stitchers who almost chanted works of literature. I believe the issue of whether the Rhapsodes sang or chanted remains important, because the delivery can alter performance outcomes. Perhaps chanting facilitates unison speaking, which builds comunitas.
In addition to being song-stituchers, the Rhapsodes acted as entertainers, educators, and interpretative lecturers. They served the interest of the state by inspiring Greeks to have hatred for the Barbarians, while giving them the courage to fight. Thus, the Rhapsodes reified Greek culture and created a sense of pride among the people. The groups also developed a sense of shared identity betweeen Greeks by expressing the classical words of Homer (Lentz) Nevertheless, some scholars, such as Plato, found faults with the Rhapsodes.
Plato (disguised as Socrates in "Ion") pinpointed a negative correlation between Rhapsodes and "True Art." Rhapsodes, according to Socrates, cannot cure patients like Physicians or have knowledge of the ocean like a sailor. If Ion was able to speak of Homer by the rules of "Art," he would have ben able to speak of all other poets (epic and lyric). Thus, Rhapsodes do not have a larger understanding of "Truth," as they are merely possessed by the Gods (Plato).
Another group, the Sophists, have been compared to the Rhapsodes. Both are entertainers, educators, and interpretative lecturers. In the words of Protagoras: "The poets, hence the Rhapsodes, reall were Sophists who called themselves poets in order to escape the odium of being classed with the Sophists (Protagoras)." Previous scholars have also demonstrated the similarities between the two, as they were both relativists and profit driven.
Following the Greek era, public recitals and public discourse became popular in Rhome. The Romans patterned their way of life after the Greeks. In other words, the Romans borrowed the political system and ways of entertaining from Greece. Though speeches became most popular during this time, oral interpretation remained important.
In addition to being song-stituchers, the Rhapsodes acted as entertainers, educators, and interpretative lecturers. They served the interest of the state by inspiring Greeks to have hatred for the Barbarians, while giving them the courage to fight. Thus, the Rhapsodes reified Greek culture and created a sense of pride among the people. The groups also developed a sense of shared identity betweeen Greeks by expressing the classical words of Homer (Lentz) Nevertheless, some scholars, such as Plato, found faults with the Rhapsodes.
Plato (disguised as Socrates in "Ion") pinpointed a negative correlation between Rhapsodes and "True Art." Rhapsodes, according to Socrates, cannot cure patients like Physicians or have knowledge of the ocean like a sailor. If Ion was able to speak of Homer by the rules of "Art," he would have ben able to speak of all other poets (epic and lyric). Thus, Rhapsodes do not have a larger understanding of "Truth," as they are merely possessed by the Gods (Plato).
Another group, the Sophists, have been compared to the Rhapsodes. Both are entertainers, educators, and interpretative lecturers. In the words of Protagoras: "The poets, hence the Rhapsodes, reall were Sophists who called themselves poets in order to escape the odium of being classed with the Sophists (Protagoras)." Previous scholars have also demonstrated the similarities between the two, as they were both relativists and profit driven.
Following the Greek era, public recitals and public discourse became popular in Rhome. The Romans patterned their way of life after the Greeks. In other words, the Romans borrowed the political system and ways of entertaining from Greece. Though speeches became most popular during this time, oral interpretation remained important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)