The Communicated Stereotype

On today’s Weblog Wednesday, I invite you to read a blog posted at The Society for Menstrual Research website. The author, Alex Epstein, discusses her realization that menstruation isn’t and shouldn’t be a cause of embarrassment and, thus, something to hide. As you read her short post I encourage you to think about the stereotypes of women that make hiding menstruation a popular thing to do. To start you off on this fun endeavor I relate hiding menstruation to the four stereotypes of women discussed at the Hello Beautiful website.

1. “You Have To Have A Baby To Be Complete” (Stereotype= all women can and should have children)

To be pregnant is to NOT have your period. Showing you have your period by, for example, discussing it openly or flaunting a tampon communicates that you are definitely not pregnant. If pregnancy and birth is the standard for women to be “complete” according to this version of the stereotype, then, hiding it has the allure of making your pregnancy status a mystery.

2. “You Need To Be A Wife To Be Complete” (Stereotype= all women want to do is get married)

This stereotype about women ties into stereotypes about wives in general. Wives- albeit stereotypically AND I certainly don’t fall into this category- are those, who put dinner on the table and keep the house clean. These actions are also metaphors for the more subtle duties of being wife. Wives, according to this metaphor, always need to keep the appearance of being tidy and be discreet even when things are messy. Well, menstruation is often viewed as gross or disgusting to have as well as to discuss. After all, in the absence of tampons or sanitary napkins, women would essentially bleed all over the nice white carpet in that stereotypical wife’s home. So, according to the stereotype, being a woman who eventually wants to be a wife requires being discreet about her period.

3. “You Cannot Have A Successful Career And A Husband” (Stereotype= all women want true love AND true love means heterosexual marriage and unconditional love which cannot be accomplished if a woman’s time and devotion is split between work and a husband)

The crux of this stereotype is that, for women, working outside the home and a personal life are mutually exclusive. Working outside the home limits a woman’s ability to be dedicated to her husband and being dedicated to one’s husband limits a woman’s ability to be dedicated to a career. So, the advice to women here is to keep your personal life and career life separate while, nonetheless, dedicating yourself 100% to each. Because menstruation falls under personal life, hiding menstruation is a prerequisite to pursuing a career.

Keep in mind that there is not a similar stereotype for men. For men, the workplace is not verboten. So now add in the gender stereotype that women need to “act like men” to succeed in the workplace. Thus, the idea of hiding menstruation takes on a profoundly symbolic role. Hiding menstruation, which is uniquely female, promotes women’s ability to “act like men.” Hiding menstruation not only enables women to act like a man (i.e., someone who does not menstruate) but it also normalizes hiding one of the most fundamental qualities of being a woman. To not hide menstruation and, thus, to not give in to the pressure to cover one’s gender in this way, becomes tantamount to proclaiming “I am woman hear me roar!” The merits for a woman’s career path for merging the workplace and personal life by making such a proclamation will depend largely on the organizational culture of a specific workplace.

4. Prince Charming Will Come and Swoop You Up And Solve All Of Your Problems (Stereotype= Men want to solve problems. Women can’t solve their own problems)

The idea of menstruation as messy is certainly relevant here. After all, Prince Charming sits atop a white horse!! But, since I have discussed this already in #2 above, I will focus on the “solve all your problems” part of this one. How does one solve the “problem” of menstruation? First, pads and tampons (Thank you Doctor Earle Haas)! Most recently some birth control pills make the duration between periods much longer. Regardless of these options, menstruation is essentially inevitable. Making matters worse, for some women, along with menstruation comes one or more of the following symptoms: headaches, migraines, stomach cramps, back pain, and so forth. Many a person has sat helpless watching a friend or romantic partner suffer from these symptoms (on the occasions when medication is out or reach or not working well). As wonderful as Prince Charming may be, even this is out of his ability to control. According to male stereotypes, men like to solve problems. [Note: my husband, seeing my long to do list, neatly stacked piles of papers, and watching me frantically type this post literally just now asked "Is there anything I can do to help you? He looked up to see the title of the website and we both laughed hysterically! But I digress...] Hiding menstruation- and its symptoms- enables women to avoid frustrating their potential Prince Charmings with an unsolvable problem.

Tracing stereotypes as a partial cause of behavior like I have done with the four stereotypes above is fun (at least for the stereotype guru). Read Alex Epstein’s post about her experience realizing that menstruation isn’t something to hide. While you read it have some fun too and think about the other stereotypes of women with which you are familiar and make your own connections.

Unfortunately, The Communicated Stereotype is not in a position to give money away.

Fortunately, others are and TCS is happy to have the opportunity to share information with you about a $5,000 scholarship.

According to the website:

“You would be a great contender for this scholarship if you meet the following criteria:

-You are a US citizen
-You are currently enrolled in or will be enrolled in a post-secondary accredited institution for the 2012-2013 academic school year
-You have a financial need for this scholarship and are already receiving or are planning to receive some other type of financial aid
-You are working towards a degree in:
Psychology
Sociology
Communications/Public Speaking
Political Science
GLBT Studies
Conflict Resolution Studies
Fine Arts / Performing Arts
-You plan to pursue a career that will allow you to speak out against the bullying, prejudice, and negative stereotypes that are often thrust upon the GLBT community, and/or mentor and counsel those affected by such prejudice.”

Keep in mind the deadline for this scholarship is in less than a month (June 1st) so start working on your application materials now. For more information visit: http://www.gaydatingsites.net/ and good luck!

Recently, my blog has been a place for some interesting discussion about Asian identity and how it is viewed in the United states. One recurrent theme in comments is the Asian as foreigner stereotype. To explore Asian identity and this stereotype further, but from a personal first-hand perspective, I’m posting anonymously one person’s reflection about an experience in which this stereotype was communicated. Each time I read the essay I am struck by the intensity and variety of the emotion that one “little” question evoked.

I went to the doctor’s office to get treated for a cold. After some time in the waiting room, I saw the doctor. His first question to me was “So, what brought you to this country?” Although this inquiry appeared innocent enough, this question hurt me because it was a stereotype. To me, not only did it state that I was a foreigner, but it also meant that I was not American. I knew the doctor did not mean to hurt my feelings because he only was trying to make conversation. Like many people, the doctor misjudged my name since it was not like other American names like “John,” “Mike,” or “Jack.” Nonetheless, the stereotype had a detrimental effect of me, offending me to the point that I immediately answered “New Jersey”, remaining [mostly] silent throughout the entire examination. The doctor apologized for his mistake, but it was too late. The visit was surrounded by a cold, silent atmosphere. Thus my doctor’s visit was a prime example of the harmful consequences of a stereotype.

In my mind, the doctor was trying to use the stereotype in a beneficial way by opening communication and breaking the ice. By having some form of conversation, the silence and awkwardness of meeting someone new is lifted. Especially when talking with a medical professional, being open and comfortable is extremely important to describing the ailments affecting a person. However, the intent of the doctor’s stereotype backfired because it was [a] wrong judgment based on weak evidence (my name). Instead of being more open with the doctor, I held information back. Thus, in a sense, the stereotype did not really have a beneficial aspect to me.

This stereotype, which labeled me as a foreigner, offended me, although I knew the doctor did not mean to hurt me. Sarcastically responding “New Jersey” to his question, I proceeded to tell the doctor of my aliments, even though the stereotype placed a barrier between me and the doctor. I no longer felt comfortable, mentally or physically. Although I was angry at first, I also felt depressed because I knew the doctor did not mean to offend me. Like many people before him, the doctor made a mistake in judging my name because it sounded foreign. Although my name has foreign origins, what common American name doesn’t? Many American names like “Mike” or “John” have origins in Germanic or Celtic languages and cultures, both of which are foreign It would thus seem to be a mistake to judge people by their names alone. Yet, this mistake is prevalent in my life in the form of this foreign, un American stereotype.

Although my response did produce an apology from the doctor, it led to a cold social atmosphere that was surrounded by silence. Still recuperating from the effects of [the] stereotype, I made no attempt for small talk, and the doctor, followed suit. Except for the actual examination, in which the doctor checked my ears, throat, and heartbeat, the rest of the proceedings consisted of silence. Seemingly the doctor noticed the effect of his question, and remained quiet to lessen any more damage. This relationship was far from what I came to expect from a doctor patient relationship, where communication was open and both patient as well as doctor enjoyed each other’s company. In the end, the silence was broken when the doctor told me about my prescription and I left with a low, unenthusiastic “thank you.”

[F]or a person who views himself as an American, in spite of [a] foreign sounding name, stereotypes can challenge self concepts and create conflicts between these images [of self]. It is no wonder that I sometimes feel like I am an alien to the world.

I’m conducting a study of discussion of Jeremy Lin, a New York Knicks basketball player, during Linsanity on RealGM’s NY Knicks Basketball forum and came across this post by Moose on Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:48 am.

“Just to be clear…I’m pretty sure Lin has accepted the fact that he is Asian. As long as the nicknames aren’t mean-spirited, I don’t think he would get offended by giving him a nickname that represents his culture.

If you are Asian, and someone nicknames you dragon and that offends you, I’d like to know why…perhaps you have some personal beef against dragons.

Its not a bad thing for people to be different, and if others are being playful, and not hurtful in acknowledging those differences, then I think that’s better than the alternative, and a step in the right direction.

Some people may find it unsettling, but no one is attacking anyone here. I just felt like posting this before we have 12 pages on why everything is racist.”

The post is thought-provoking and reflects that the previous several posts had begun a debate of what nicknames are appropriate in general.

Noodles
Master Lin
The Pork Fried Point Guard
The Last Dragon

are a few that were discussed. And most of these were confronted with accusations of stereotyping and racism. Knicks 80_20 commented, “Do we have to use stereotypes? Really?” and another poster moocow007 explained, “Its like me saying that maybe we should give Shumpert a nickname of Sweet Chitlins or Manly Hamhocks.”

So which is it? Are these nicknames stereotypes and, so, problematic or as Kidknick commented “in poor taste”? Or are these legitimate “Knick”names suggested by Lin’s adoring fans? In this blog I offer standards by which to determine the answer to this and similar questions.

THE DEFINITION STANDARD: Are these “Knick”names stereotypical at all? Stereotypes are most commonly defined as a characteristic associated with a group. From this bare bones definition Noodles, Master Lin, The Pork Fried Point Guard, and The Last Dragon could be considered stereotypes because they imply that all those who are Chinese eat noodles and pork fried rice, are intelligent, and know karate (or like dragons if taken literally). By the definition standard I would have to say yes, these reflect stereotypes.

THE NEGATIVITY STANDARD: Even with these as stereotypes, should this warrant their no longer being considered as “Knick”names? Not necessarily. Why? Because that would impose negativity on an otherwise neutral stereotype. Sure, it is not a great idea to attribute a behavior to a group of people and then label one of the people from that group with a stereotype. However, this particular stereotype is being used as a “Knick”name by fans whose intent is to show devotion and admiration. After all, we use nicknames for our dearest friends and closest family members. Even a nickname like “Feet” that invokes sensory awareness of bad odors can be used, as is the case with a friend of the family, as a bonding tool to show someone they are welcome and amongst friends and family. People used the nickname “Feet” so often that I didn’t even know Feet’s real name for a couple of years. Are these “Knick”names used with a negative intent? By this standard I would have to argue, no.

THE CONTEXT STANDARD: We all communicate stereotypes casually with friends and family as well as strangers and acquaintances. When we do so, context matters in order to understand the meaning of the stereotype. Most people would argue that a friend saying “you know how women are” followed by some insult as you are trying to get over a break up with your girlfriend is a lot different than a coworker uttering the same sentence after interviewing potential (female) candidates for a vacancy with the company. So by the context standard I would have to argue that the context made it clear that they were not being racist. Indeed, Master Lin even sounds decidedly flattering and respectful.

The three standards just discussed can extend beyond the comments on the Knicks forum. Indeed, these standards should be applicable across stereotypical comments if they are to be useful to help determine the extent to which a communicated stereotype should be viewed as problematic. Well, let’s see if these standards generalize and in doing so let’s introduce a fourth and final* standard by which to make such a judgment.

Let’s look at the example that got caused a commotion in the media when an ESPN headline and an anchor each used the phrase “Chink in the Armor.”

THE DEFINITION STANDARD: This statement is not stereotypical. Instead, it is an ethnophaulism (fancy word for ethnic slur– impress your friends!!). Even though this comment does not pass the definition standard, an ethnic slur might be problematic still. Consider the N word, the Q word, the C word, the S word, and so forth.

THE NEGATIVITY STANDARD: Although the tone of the headline is negative, the negativity is not inherent in the word Chink. Instead, it stems from the full phrase. This full phrase is also what creates the humor because whoever is causing the chink in the armor is not doing well AND also happens to be Chinese. The Chink part is merely a double entendre intended to reflect that Lin is Chinese. In general ethnophaulisms are considered negative. However, even the N word and the Q word can be used positively despite being two of the most objectionable ethnophaulisms that exist. As a result, I don’t think the use of the word Chink in the headline is intended to be negative.

THE CONTEXT STANDARD: In the context of the headline, was the meaning in context racist or otherwise prejudicial? I would argue no or at least that it is unclear from the headline. The persons who spoke/wrote the story- and who were later suspended/ fired for doing so could be said to be racist. However, it would be a leap to make such a claim based entirely on what some would argue is a clever headline.

Now here is where things get tricky. Introducing…

THE CONSEQUENCE STANDARD: What are the consequences for communicating this way? By using the phrase “Chink in the Armor” I would argue the media single handedly reminded the culture that Chink exists as a word, demonstrated through legitimate power that saying it was an appropriate thing to do, and, especially thanks to the added negative media attention caused by the suspension and firing, made it cool to say. In this way, by the consequence standard, the headline is problematic. If you read the fine print (stated here) of the consequence standard, then you know that this standard trumps all of the other standards against which such comments can be measured.

So let’s use the consequence standard to revisit the “Knick”names for Jeremy Lin posted on the forum:

Noodles
Master Lin
The Pork Fried Point Guard
The Last Dragon

Can what was said about the consequence standard related to the headline Chink in the Armor be said to apply to these “Knick”names? Consider that by saying these, it suggests- at least prior to the backlash they earned- that they are legitimate ways to refer to a person and that doing so is an appropriate thing to do. Moreover, because these were embedded in what ultimately is a humorous discussion, they make “Knick”names cool to say. Can you imagine how many people during Linsanity repeated these to others outside of the forum? And it’s not likely that in each of these cases there were people in the conversation willing to backlash against these “Knick”names.

The verdict from The Communicated Stereotype is ultimately that these “knick”names are terms of endearment because of the first three standards. But with the addition of the fourth standard, these terms can be viewed as problematic too because they ultimately, albeit it inadvertently, promote stereotypes.

* TCS reserves the rights to add, change, or delete standards.

Funny story.

My husband goes to the Police museum with our children where they have a kids entertainment area with pretend cop cars, police station, emergency vehicles, dress up clothes, and gear. This museum is a century old precinct that was converted once it outlived its original purpose. Visiting it is like going back in time a hundred years.

It hosts parties, and on this day a group of parents are celebrating one boy’s birthday. Nearly all the children there are boys near to his age, with the exception of one girl. The boys immediately take to their surroundings and act out their police fantasies. They chase each other around, yelling phrases like “freeze” and “you’re going to jail.” The girl sits in a police car alone.

The boys, all competing to be police, need to find someone to play robber, and they single out one boy. For the 20 minutes my husband observed these kids, children kept selecting the same child to be the robber. A couple of kids surround him and tell him he’s going to jail. The boys would play fight, and then move on to another activity. A few minutes later a different group of boys then find the same child and make him the criminal to chase around.

Sometimes, the stereotypes that get communicated let us know that times really have not changed in one hundred years. Of the twenty kids playing cops and robbers, the one continually selected to play the robber is the only black kid.

Funny story, well kind of, but definitely no joke.

Hello all and welcome to Media Monday at The Communicated Stereotype! Despite that I am hard at work proofing my new intercultural communication textbook titled Inter/Cultural Communication: Representation and Construction of Culture to which I have dedicated the last two plus years while working with 44 patient and wonderful contributors, my husband dropped me a hint that it’s been too long since my last blog entry and shared with me a cartoon that communicates stereotypes of Jews. Apropos of Media Monday at TCS, I thought I would take a breather and post it.

For some of you this cartoon will immediately evoke a laugh.

For some of you this cartoon won’t make much sense. It’s likely that if you don’t understand this cartoon and if you are in front of someone else, you might do one of two things. Either pretend to understand it or ask someone to explain it.

If you asked for explanation, you might hear one of two things. Either you would hear that the cartoon is supposed to be funny because the stereotype is that Jews are Cheap and the person offering shrimp is trying to assuage the person’s concern about the price of the shrimp*. Your response to this clarification about the meaning of the cartoon might be to say, “Oh, right. I get it.”

If you don’t receive such a detailed answer of explanation about the cartoon, you might instead receive an answer like, “Oh forget about it” indicating essentially the person is unwilling to share the reason it is funny with you, most typically perhaps giving the impression that “It wasn’t that funny anyway.”

This result is one of the most beautiful aspects of communicated stereotypes and is what happens with stereotypes communicated in an implicit way (Boss, 1979). The stereotype is hinted at but not stated. So, in order for the stereotype to be given its meaning, the person hearing the stereotype (or reading it) must demonstrate some acknowledgement that the meaning has been received. In acknowledging that the meaning has been received, whether you agree with the stereotype or not, you become complicit in the act of giving meaning to the stereotype. In doing so, YOU perpetuate the stereotype only you likely don’t realize that this is what you’ve done!

In the examples I just gave of how you might respond to the cartoon, you either laughed, pretended to understand the cartoon, or eventually said “Oh, right. I get it.” In all three cases you confirmed the stereotype as having meaning, making sense, and- in essence- being true, or at least being worthy of having been made into a cartoon.

The beauty of the implicitness of the stereotype gets even better. Wait for it…It’s like being on a scenic look out point on the side of a mountain and realizing there is one more corner you can look from and – BAM – an even more breathtaking view! Wait for it…

If you inquired about the meaning of the stereotype and were told essentially not to worry about what it means, you don’t participate in giving meaning to the stereotype (yeah!) though you do look ignorant or naive about common cultural stereotypes in American culture (boo-hoo!). But the best part is that the other person doesn’t contribute to the meaning either! In other words, the stereotype gets communicated with no one to blame (it’s only a cartoon after all ) or you equally participate!

If the stereotype was communicated in an explicit way, then you could yell at the cartoonist, the friend who provided the explanation, or even yourself if you repeated the meaning of the cartoon to someone else. You might say, “That’s so offensive.” “How can you say something like that?” But once people acknowledge the stereotype being communicated without placing immediate blame or taking immediate offense, then no one person can be yelled at. Instead everyone participates and the stereotype passes through the conversation as innocently as if someone said “Please pass the butter” at a Thanksgiving Dinner feast.

It’s not surprising to see cartoons communicating stereotypes in ways that promote stereotypes as true. But it is at times depressing. Just think about all that programming your kids are watching. Mine too.

Reference:
Boss, George P. “The Stereotype and Its Correspondence in Discourse to the. Enthymeme.” Communication Quarterly 27:2 (1979): 22-27.

* Note that the humor in the joke is NOT related to the ignorance (or rudeness) of the person offering the shrimp who is unaware (or unconcerned about or outright mocking) Jewish dietary restrictions related to shellfish.

When I was younger, a dear friend of mine complimented me saying that “I am impressed with what you have accomplished.” He then added, especially considering you came from a broken home.” I was flattered by the compliment and flustered by the added sentiment. It took me a minute to understand and process what he had said. At that time and at any time since I had never thought of myself as coming from a broken home. Sure, my home was different from other people’s, but whose wasn’t. I had friends whose parents hated each other. I had friends whose parents were wealthy. I had friends with five children. I had friends who were the only child of an overprotective family. I never saw my family as any different than how each of these families were different. For today’s WEblog Wednesday I would like to highlight the work of one of my former students, Brooke Pischke. In her blog she argues that single parent families are an overlooked and stereotyped cultural group. My friend had no idea that he was communicating a stereotype in his compliment, one I’ve always disagreed with and never forgotten.

Single Parent Families and Stereotypes
by Brooke Pischke

Single parent families are a stereotyped culture because they deviate from the nuclear family. Even though they compose “approximately 13.7 million”(Wolf, 2011) of our society, the single parent family structure but can be viewed as a minority due to their lack of power based upon their co-cultural group membership, their low level of privilege along with their out-group identity.

Co-Cultural Group Membership
Best described as a group of people who congregate together based on their cultural similarities, co-cultural group membership typically tends to resemble “a person’s belonging to a non-dominant group” therefore they are essentially “ignored and deemed part of the underclass” (Orbe, p. 235). Those with membership to co-cultural groups are typically from a non-dominant group that can be comprised of “people of color, women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, people with disabilities and those from lower socioeconomic status” (Orbe, p. 235).

Single parent families are a non-dominant group that is marginalized by prominent societal structures. In this case, the predominant societal structure can be recognized as the traditional familial structure of the nuclear family which is defined as “a group of people who are united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children” (Encyclopedia Britannica).

The nuclear family has been accepted as a norm in society. Thus, all other familial structures that deviate from this norm automatically comprise a co-cultural group based upon a unity of otherness where “individuals are deemed to have deviated from the culture standard” (Yep, p. 204). In the case of single parent families, “approximately 84% of custodial parents are mothers” (Wolf, 2011). Since women are defined as apart of a non-dominant group, the fact that they are also the majority of single parents further suggests them membership in this co-cultural group.

Even though single parent families do not occupy the majority and are often at times “powerless within the predominant societal structures, group members do not function less effectively” (Orbe, p. 237). This contrasts the stereotypes used by political commentator, Ann Coulter. In her book Guilty, Coulter blames single parent families for societies shortcomings saying, “The strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent” (Garfinkle). Even though according to the 2009 census only 27% of single custodial mothers live in poverty, Coulter associates poverty with single parent families and with a high crime rate. This communicates and, in doing so, reinforces the majority stereotype against the non-dominant group of single-parent families.

Power and Privilege
Privilege is best defined as “a frequently invisible and normalized process whereby a person is granted more value and given better treatment solely based on this individual’s membership in a group” (Yep, p. 210). More often than not, privilege is granted regardless of something a person or cultural group has “done or failed to do” (Yep, p. 210). Often at times, society unconsciously creates privilege that lacks true substance known as conferred dominance, thus absent-mindedly encouraging the creation of stereotypes. Through society’s eyes, the nuclear family is regarded as the norm and as a result is conferred dominance. Single parent families deviate from the norm simply because their children are raised by only one care provider.

Privilege gains its strength from this hierarchy of power in which single parent families are viewed as underprivileged and less powerful than nuclear families. Essentially, single parent families become an oppressed group within society because of the conferred dominance attributed to nuclear families. Because power is conferred on nuclear families, they receive privileges as a result. One of these privileges is avoiding the negative stereotypes like that which was communicated by Coulter.

In-groups and Out-groups
One can say that the implementations of power, privilege and group membership are hinged upon the enactment of in-groups and out-groups in society. For starters, “an in-group is a social category or group with which you identify strongly” whereas “an out-group, conversely, is a social category or group with which you do not identify” (Giles, p. 105). In the case of familial structure, society deems the nuclear family as the in-group since it maintains the majority and single parent families as the out-group since it is viewed as representing a minority.

Society portrays single parent families as the out-group by, for example, using them as a scapegoat for society’s shortcomings. In the book “Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts and What Helps”, McLanahan says that single parent families negatively impact a child’s educational achievement as well as increase the risk of teenage pregnancy. Being apart of an in-group or an out-group, Giles says, “there is a direct correlation between your identification with a particular group” and as a result, there is a greater sense of personal worth associated with that identification (p. 107). Society’s derogatory association of single parent families as underachievers (in McLanahan’s case) or as minorities fosters the erroneous belief that this culture is not as worthy as the rest.

Being the victim of a stereotype is never pleasant but by sharing this side of the story one is able to understand that coming from a single parent family is not a handicap but rather is constructed as a handicap by how people communicate about this group. A single parent family is simply a difference in family dynamic and nothing more. Due to their non-dominant group membership, lack of privilege through power along with their out-group identity, single parent families are identified as minorities even though this stereotype does not define this culture’s true potential.

Works Cited
Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Nuclear family. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.

Garfinkle, S. Ann Coulter and Single Moms – On Parenting. The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 21 Jan. 2009. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.

Giles, H., & Giles, J. (in press). Privilege and culture. In A. Kurylo (Ed.), Inter/Cultural Communication: Representation and Construction of Culture in Everyday Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLanahan, S. ““Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts and What Helps.” Harvard University Press, 15 June 2002. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.

Orbe, M. (in press). Privilege and culture. In A. Kurylo (Ed.), Inter/Cultural Communication: Representation and Construction of Culture in Everyday Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wolf, J. Single Parent Statistics – Figures on Kids Being Raised By One Adult. Single Parents | Child Support and Child Custody | Help for Single Moms and Dads. United States Census Department, 26 Feb. 2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2011.

Yep, G. A. (in press). Privilege and culture. In A. Kurylo (Ed.), Inter/Cultural Communication: Representation and Construction of Culture in Everyday Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sometimes people become annoyed when a person criticizes the media for how groups, particularly racial, gender, and age groups are represented. Naysayers would argue that the critic is exaggerating, making much ado about nothing, and just being overly PC (“i.e., politically correct).” But one wonders whether they have ever taken a critical look at media messages about these groups.

Why not try now? Let’s engage in a small activity using gender as a case study.

PART A:
Purchase two magazines at your local newsstand (subtext: support local business). All the better if these are gendered magazines like GQ or Glamour. Look at each full page advertisement in each magazine. Then ask yourself these questions:

1a) What stands out to you in the advertisements?
2a) What behaviors/objects do you see consistently across the ads?
3a) What characteristics would you attribute to the women in each ad? To the men?
4a) What are the similarities across the advertisements in the two magazines? What are the differences?

PART B:
Pick one advertisement from each magazine that you think is representative of the types of advertisements in each. Because we are looking at representations of people, make sure there is at least one person as the focus of each ad.
1b) Who do you think is the audience being targeted by each advertisement?
2b) What is the text of each advertisement? I am not referring here to the typical meaning of text as typed words, but instead text I am referring to the “the actual words, pictures and/or
sounds in a media message.”
3b) What is the subtext of each advertisement? “The subtext is the hidden and underlying meaning of the message.”
4b) What values and opinions are being expressed by the advertisement? How, if at all, are these messages different depending on the magazine?

PART C:
Now that you have completed this little activity, read what Goffman had to say about how women and men were represented in advertisements when he published in 1976, 36 years ago.

Goffman (1976) categorizes and provides examples of advertisements that demonstrate the polarization of men and women in the media. Goffman demonstrates how women are shown in advertisements as expressive. Women are shown to use touch in a caressing fashion regardless of whether it is self or other touch. Females are shown engaging in leisure activities, such as relaxing sipping drinks, or smiling having conversations.

In contrast, males are shown as engaging in instrumental activities. These males appear to use touch in a functional rather than expressive way. Furthermore, males engage in the activity of instructing while women or those younger than the male are instructed. Males are shown as serious and engaged at work.

Goffman discusses how advertisements reinforce gendered behavior by exaggerating cross gender behavior to make the viewer laugh. Advertisements show females performing stereotypical male work such as carpentry wearing workman’s clothes and so forth while the men engage in leisure pursuits. Other advertisements cross the gender roles by humorously having men doing housework.

DEBRIEF

In 36 years, have the images changed tremendously?

The reason people are critical of advertisements and their representations of racial, gendered, and age groups is because these are clear and, as Goffman’s study contrasted to your own activity results show, consistent messages being perpetuated by this form of media. There are two counterarguments used by naysayers, however, against such claims.

First, advertisers are surely and simply trying to sell a product and so marketing to a specific demographic, represented in a typical if not universal way is justifiable for a profit driven industry. There is no need to provide additional detail here about this argument when the argument is made in the comments of one of my previous blogs.

Second, and Goffman provides this counter-argument against the critical theorists himself, despite the ubiquity of these images, “nothing dictates that should we dig and poke behind these images we can expect to find anything there” (p. 8). Goffman is able to distinguish between the images that the media portrays of a gender polarized population and the ability of a population to be able to choose whether to embody these gendered behaviors. Goffman argues that gendered advertisements suggest “that there is an underlying reality to gender” (p. 8). Instead, “there is only a schedule for the portrayal of gender” (p. 8). By “schedule” Goffman means to say there is a time and place in which gendered portrayals of self are appropriate. Advertisements help to socialize people into knowing this schedule but people themselves have the free will to choose whether to engage or not in behaviors in a way consistent with this schedule.

Are the naysayers correct in arguing that those critical of advertisements exaggerate the importance of gendered advertisements?

Kruse, Weimer, and Wagner’s (1988) research on West-German magazines analyzed how men and women presented in print and what types of actions each are shown to engage in when talked about. While having limited generalizability to a discussion of gender polarization in American culture, their results are conveniently consistent with what has been discussed by Goffman and what as presumably found through your activity. In their research, the gender representations include that “men are expected to be strong, women to be fragile, men to be hard, women to be tender” (p. 245). The results of this research show that “at least in widely read magazine articles . . . women are characterized as seeking help . . . . Men are described as conquerors” (p. 254). Men are viewed as threatening, while women are seen as passive and defensive (p. 256). In terms of the expressiveness-instrumental poles, “women rather than men are presented as showing feelings of joy . . . but also negative feelings [of anger, hate, fear, disappointment, etc.]” (p. 260).

Kruse, et al. consider that media are an “ ‘external memory’ for social representations accessible to all members of a language community” (p. 260). These provide more than a repertoire of behavior as Goffman argued and, instead these authors argue that the representations “seem to cement traditional interaction patterns” (p. 261). For those who are critical of the way in which racial, gendered, and age groups are represented in advertisements, it is this cementing that is problematic. It is made still more so because it comes at the cost of supplanting images that would advance beyond these gendered representations.

Know someone who is racist? Colbert has the solution and it’s packaged in pill form!

One of my biggest joys is checking out the number of people who come to my blog. Since its inception in July I have increased my hits by fifty each month. I am preoccupied with the entire idea that people are interested in what I have to say. I wonder at times why that is and I am always grateful that people are. I am most fascinated when I look at what is called the World Map which displays as dots on a map where my recent visitors reside. Minutes ago, for example, I enjoyed seeing that over the last few hours people had visited my site from Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Portugal, United Kingdom, and Vietnam. I am happy to know that my work has such a varied audience.

I want to take advantage of this by asking a favor from readers residing outside of the United States who come to The Communicated Stereotype. I hope you will oblige my request.

Please share with my readers and with me your culture’s stereotypes of Americans.

Of course I must qualify that I know these are not necessarily stereotypes that you hold or believe in. I know that not everyone in your country actually holds these stereotypes. I am merely looking for common stereotypes of Americans that are familiar to members of your culture.

If you are willing to share these, please post them as comments to this blog. I will be forever grateful if you do.