WHERE DO I START !!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes it’s a little difficult to get started once you’ve chosen an example of popular culture to analyze. You may think you understand it and then sit down to write and don’t know where to start. What kinds of questions should I be asking? What is considered important? If you have seriously thought about and questioned the way your example of popular culture operates within your society then you can find a way to apply theory to its analysis. We’ve presented a couple of examples here to play around with how one might approach a topic. There are so many ways to examine each one that you may feel really overwhelmed, but my advice to you would be to run with the brainstorming and enjoy the ride!

Gilligan’s Island…one example of multiple theories applied to a cultural text

Note: I am going to assume here that we are all familiar with the show Gilligan’s Island, and therefore I am going to refrain from thick description and just get into the analysis brainstorming!

            A Marxist might look at the group of castaways assembled on the island and examine the hierarchy of power. Who has power on the island and what is the nature of that power? Is there an equal or unequal distribution of goods/commodities on the island? Clearly the Howell’s have a great deal of money and power, both on the island and back in the ‘real world’ of civilization. Does that money still secure their elite position on the island? If so, how is that possible when money has no present value in their stranded condition? Why is it that Gilligan and the Skipper still feel compelled to serve the others? Guilt? Maybe, maybe not. Why is the Skipper named ‘Skipper’ and not ‘Captain’, a more commanding title of greater status and rank? Could there be something more involved here, like perhaps the workings of hegemony and ideology?  Maybe. Given their current circumstances one might think the Skipper and Gilligan would gain status because they are the only ones with the practical maritime knowledge and skills to sail away. After all, if it weren’t “for the courage of the fearless crew the Minnow would be lost…..the Minnow would be lost.” The only members of the castaways with any real potential for becoming the saviors are the members of the subordinate class. They clearly have power in this situation but is it realized?  It seems as though the initial hierarchy is maintained on the island through interpersonal relationships. It is all pretty comical because it seems so absurd to maintain industrial society stratification on a deserted island! But the alternative may be to have all organization and hope for rescue lost, and that could have devastating psychological consequences. If Gilligan and Skipper refused to carry the Howell’s gear around and bring them food, would there be any social repercussions? And what about the Professor and his powers of science, a near religion in the 1950’s and 60’s? This historical timeframe of production is important to examine in Marxist theory, and science (and the Professor as our representative) commands a significant amount of power within this context of time. Science was considered to be the all-knowing authority on ‘truth’. Is it now? Where does this place the Professor in our hierarchy? How is he valued?

Postmodernism is concerned with value construction and deconstruction. There is no value inherent in cultural texts or practices (or money or gold!); we construct it individually and as a society. Postmodernism, as a reaction to modernism and the status quo, seeks the source of meaning and its relationship to power and authority. The Professor could be a jump off point to look at science as metanarrative. Science is seen as an authority of knowledge. And the Professor is looked to as a highly valuable member of the group. The inventions of the Professor rarely succeed in rectifying their situation, but the other castaways continually seek the comfort of his knowledge. And we see that his knowledge is only useful if it serves a practical, productive end (sounding like economic influences of capitalism here.….?). With a postmodern approach to Gilligan’s Island, one could examine the way the castaways construct their reality on the island. While they are clearly well beyond the realm of what we (Euro-American Industrialized nations) consider ‘civilization’, they continue daily life as if they were still living their old reality in California. Ginger still rehearses her lines and gazes at her own reflection of pouty lips and sultry eyes. Thirston Howell III, and his queen ‘Lovey’, insist on quality service and respect for their elite class position. Their simulated constructions of reality and culture are more real than the concrete and tangible reality they actually face daily. They rarely lose hope for their rescue and simply carry on as if they were still at ‘home’. They are caught in a nostalgia culture that creates myth in a symbolic aesthetic history (see Jameson) that they view as real history….and perhaps we are caught in it as well whenever we ‘tune in’ to watch them! Remember the special ‘made for TV’ episode Rescue from Gilligan’s Island? The castaways return to the mainland and find that they are all now merely entertaining anachronisms with 15 minutes of fame. Their remedy is to blissfully, albeit accidentally, return to the island as castaways once again, back to the nostalgic time capsule of constructed reality. They exercised choice by going back to sea, and maybe also choice as a collective unconscious to return to their island paradise/prison. This choice has even MORE implications for discussions of power! (OK, so it always comes down to power for me, what can I tell you).

This issue of power has a great deal of overlap with Feminist analysis. Nobody would doubt that the women have power on the island. What is the nature of the power? Ginger maintains her sexual power, and MaryAnn maintains her innocently domestic and  charming power. A feminist approach might examine the use of these women in the series. Why were these archetypes chosen to represent the female presence? Is it an accurate representation of dominant female roles in society in the 1950/60’s? Is it today? What role does ‘Lovey’ Howell play? How do these roles affect female viewers? Where does the ‘male gaze’ come in; how do these roles affect male viewers? Are they simply the roles chosen to symbolically fulfill the emotional and sexual needs of the men on the island (and in the audience) or are they representative of ‘real’ segments of society and used to solidify a notion of identity for female viewers? Who were the writers for the script of Gilligan’s Island? Who funded the production of the show? What can this information tell us about the intended meaning? Are there groups of viewers who read more deeply into the script and what is the meaning they derive? There are endless directions one could take on an analysis of a topic such as this! One could look at one particular episode, one particular character, the entire scenario, the effect it had on audience, on marginal segments of society, etc.

            Structuralism is a bit different in approach because it is analytical but does not in theory examine value or politics, though these elements can be applied. It looks largely at language and its underlying structure, and the process of meaning. Levi-Strauss says that myths work like language in articulating the underlying structure of society and this is accomplished through the use of binary opposites. Myths function to resolve the contradictions of these opposites and bring some peace of mind.  Gilligan’s Island may be a myth perpetually enacted by binary opposites. One could look basically at the underlying structure of the script and delineate and examine binary oppositions such as primitive:civilized, nature:machine, rich:poor, knowledge:ignorance, hope:despair. How are these opposites resolved by the myth? Or are they? Post-structuralism introduces the topics of ideology. By examining the creation of language and the culturally constructed meaning (heavily dependent on experience) language becomes ideological. Post-structuralists believe meaning is constantly shifting and therefore cannot be inherent in a structure or a text. Meaning is individually derived. Semiology, the science of studying signs, examines meaning at multiple levels. To do a semiotic analysis of Gilligan’s Island, one could examine the layered levels of meaning of………Gilligan’s hat? Is it just a hat or does it say something about his role? His value? His character? Is it a sign that could have different meanings for different viewers? Would you ever expect any of the other characters to wear it? If the answer is no, then there is probably some real meaning embedded in it as a sign. I seem to recall that the Skipper was very protective of his hat. Material things can easily contain a great deal of meaning for us and it’s fascinating to alalyze that meaning.

            So one can see there is a great deal of overlap in the use of theoretical approaches and endless possibilities for analysis. Elements from different theories can be applied to one simple example. It’s mind candy. It’s really fun to play with and see what pans out. I guarantee you’ll never watch TV or shop the same way again!

Female wrestling action figure…..an example of a cultural text.

This female wrestler is based on a ‘real’ person, albeit one chosen and ‘created’ by her culture. She has defined musculature and a pose that shows she is meant to fight (inflict violence). She is wearing work boots, tight black pants and a revealing red (passion/violence) top with ‘savage’ tiger stripes. While her face is a strange mixture of what we consider masculine and feminine features there is no mistaking the overtly enhanced female sexual features. With the prevalence of plastic surgery this may well be consistent with the ‘real’ persona after which it was modeled, but we shouldn’t forget that this persona was chosen and marketed because of those features. While there are many conflicting masculine features the female sexual features leave no doubt that this is a female action figure.

The accessories accompanying this figure are a mop and bucket, but not a domestic pair. The mop and bucket are the tools of a janitor, a typically male occupation.  A classmate said that this set is not an actual trademark feature of the act leading me to believe that it may be either a wrestling metaphor (‘mop up’ the opponent) or a comment on gender roles. Is the action figure a creature morphing from the feminine housekeeper stereotype to a less threatening version of the male form, one often associated with the subordinate class and performing work that, though necessary, is considered less valuable in our society; one that reveres financial and recognized ‘success’? Is this an additional indication of the intended meaning of this ‘toy’? And if so what are the ramifications? Is it an attempt to subvert longstanding cultural ethics of acceptable male behavior toward female in our age of equal rights? One could argue that this toy permits the use of violence against women because she can now obviously defend herself and inflict her own damage. Men are understandably confused.

But this blending of male and female characteristics indicates a muddy ground for the possibly shifting gender roles of women in our society.

We can take another of example of a cultural text, a toy intended to be played with by children (primary targeted audience). This toy is an example of popular culture; it is mass marketed, it is very popular to own, it is based on re-enacting and recreating a ‘real’ cultural practice (watching pro-wrestling). With the popularity of the World Wresting Federation (and related organizations), we see mass consumption of, in this case, toys reflecting the popularity of a popular recreational past-time. The toy’s very existence is loaded with information embedded in its design and intended function. The toys existence reflects a cultural practice, that of the weekly, often family /peer group viewing of WWF wrestling on TV). The action figure itself, a representative of a pro-wrestler, is a “cultural text”, a symbol or example of culture. Not only is the action figure a reflection of the culture, but the actual pro-wrestler image herself (her persone) is a creation and reflection of that culture. It is really very fascinating to examine and here is where theory helps in the analysis. Lets look at how each of four theoretical positions would approach the analysis.

Marxism is a theory that is primarily concerned with power issues and the uneven distribution of power that is supported by ideology. A Marxist would clearly see this action figure  with overtly massive muscles and mop and bucket as a power issue. The action figure is wearing work boots and jeans, a typically blue collar attire, and is featured with a janitor’s mop and pail, signifying a subordinate position in society. One could examine in many directions here.

One can do a semiotic analysis of this pretty easily by examining what we draw from this thing as a sign. What meaning do we derive. Upon first glance a female wrestling action figure registers as ‘toy’. In Saussere’s division between signifier and signified the object itself is the signifier and ‘something to play with’, as a conjured image in our mind, is the signified. That leads to ‘toy’ being the sign. And there is nothing inherently political about the statement of the toy unless something is known of the culture creating it because it is a creation and reflection of that culture. A four-year-old boy may not recognize the significance of an action figure being reflective of the culture, for he has not yet stored an extensive cultural repertoire. He sees toy and he sees power (perhaps the second level of meaning) but he may not derive further conscious meaning as an adult might, if even on a subconscious level. But that is not to say that an action figure doesn’t teach meaning by bringing a vital message about the way his culture views gender roles. And there may be a difference between 4 and 6 years of age (this age difference being culturally determined), for one may not distinguish a societal difference between male and female roles while the other may already be well aware of one. And the difference in connotation from that point between a child and an adult Barthes, a post-structuralist, believes that first level denotation (the object) is not in fact a starting point but simply a point along a continuum in the production of myth and is just as ideological as the connotation.

According to Barthes the second level of meaning is where myth is formed. In the second level the sign ‘toy’ becomes the signifier (denotation) that leads to the signified ‘power’ (connotation). The resulting sign, acting as myth, has a double function; making us understand something and imposing it upon us. The image both draws from and adds to the cultural repertoire. By ‘myth’ Barthes also means ‘ideology’ and that implies political elements, ones he’s interested in revealing. This action figure is perhaps a mythological figure and acts as a tool, much like mythology, in helping to explain something about our society.

In this age of the Charlie’s Angels remake and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, to name just a few, the prevalent image of young women is that of toughness and emotional control. One seldom sees a near lack of emotion, a characteristic still more common among villains and some male avengers, so it’s obvious our culture still wants women to exhibit emotion. While our society seems to be empowering women, for we no longer value the knuckle-biting female unless she’s used to define our new heroine, society is still in flux over where the male fits into the scene. Currently we see experiments with many roles for men but the big box office hits still feature the new tough heroine breaking down for just a moment (obviously weary and not yet used to her new role) at the end and requiring a man’s assistance. It is still competition after all and society dictates who must win. And the winner is a function of both the targeted audience and who’s spending the most money. And who has the money to spend is a product of the current leading ideology in our male dominated capitalist society.

Women are in a state of limbo with shifting gender roles. While our culture can’t completely abandon the emotionally unstable and perpetually childlike nymph there now is power reflected in her eyes. Woman is now expected to roar. But what is our conception of power? Our version seems to define women as powerful in the masculine images of man. It’s been a pressing issue particularly since the 1970’s and 1980’s when we saw more women in power business positions; as evidenced in power suits and ‘bitchy’ bosses. Tough equals powerful. Power in our society is seen as what’s masculine, but it only goes so far with women. Media still prefers a pretty face, even on a powerful woman. Greta Van Sustren, a very successful political reporter for CNN,  recently had reconstructive facial surgery that has given her a decidedly more ‘feminine’ and girly appearance. Masculine features are acceptable to a certain point. But the current ideology of our culture holds to a hierarchy. If the function of myth is to resolve our anxiety about conflicting binary opposites, than those opposites are likely to endure (because cognitive structuralists believe the human mind sees things in binary opposites), but our anxiety has not yet been resolved. It is in process. If the function of myth is to both help us understand something and to impose it upon us, the myth is that gender roles are definitely shifting and we are just not sure yet as a society where the roles will lead. There is a currently airing Disney TV commercial for Cinderella 2 that presents Cinderella stating that she is going to stop pretending to be something that she is not. What she ‘is’ and ‘isn’t’ is currently in question and the future holds the answer!

SUPERBOWLLLLLL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  An example of cultural practice as well as cultural text.

Popular culture refers to lived culture, or cultural practices, and the cultural texts which signify those practices. We have analyzed several examples of cultural texts (Gilligan’s Island, and the WWF Female Action figure). Pop culture can also take the form of cultural practice. (I’m flashing back here to the Fantastic Four ‘Wonder Twins’ ….. “Wonder Twin power – ACTIVATE!  Form offfffff …….cultural text! Shape offffff……cultural practice!” Either I’m an enormous nerd or popular culture does in fact have an enormous effect on the shaping and perception of our everyday worlds…OK, I guess both statements could be valid). Examples of popular culture that involve activities we engage in regularly include the secular practice of Christmas, Monday night football, Tupperware parties, etc. These examples are cultural practices.

If one were to take an example of a cultural practice, such as the Superbowl, where would one begin an analysis? Once again, simply by taking a critical look at something we normally engage in without much examination reveals a wealth of discussion. What can the experience tell us about the society we live in? While we can examine the content of the televised program itself and all the anticipated accompanying commercials (cultural text), we can also examine what people do in celebration (it seems it has become nearly an official holiday) and spectatorship. Lets begin with a Marxist analysis………because I can most readily (Ha!).