Water and Intelligent Bodies

When I was listening to Robin lecturing about intelligent bodies and seeing those videos about women wanting to change their bodies to make themselves feel better, I automatically thought of this ad of sandals. The woman in this image is a super model named Giselse Bundchen from Brazil. To be honest, I like this image, not only because this woman is beautiful but because the idea of dressing her up with a dress of water.

Those sandals in this image make viewers feel they are sexy. The sandals themselves have nothing to do with sexuality because they are just normal summer shoes. However, what this image is doing is that it links people's thoughts of the shoes to Gisele Bundchen and this particularly sexy commercial. The image is doing so by revealing as much as possibly allowed by advertising law. Essentially, this is almost a nudity. The revealing of the model puts the sandals into a subjectivity of being sexy. I am guessing the commercial team's idea is that they think know men would love this ad, because it's sexy. More importantly, women will buy those sandals because they know these shoes are linked to being sexy and beautiful in men's heads. I assume this serves as a great example of the ideas presented in Bordo's work.

Posting Assignment #3 (due Sunday 10/2, 11:59 P.M.; comment by 11:59 Monday, 10/3) Body Practices in Everyday Life

Find an example of a body practice from your everyday life (things you do or people around you do, images of bodies and practices and so on). Describe it (if it's an image, post the image, if it's a video, link to it) and explain what it does and how it does it.  Think: 'rhetoric'—how culture 'argues' us into subjectivity. Write in terms of our work, of course; things like: intelligible bodies, body practices, docile bodies, choice / agency (Leppert, 212-13; 243), 'pursuit(s) without a terminus' (Bordo, 166), constitutive power, 'other-oriented emotional economy' (Bordo, 171), praxis, and so on. 

Social Construction: Addiction

I have a lot of feelings on addiction and could easily talk about them for hours, I don't mind sharing this personal detail with everyone because frankly we are all college students and have probably faced something dramatic in our lives. My step-dad is a crack/heroine addict so I've basically had to learn to live with that kind of behavior since I was in middle school (a little side-note is he just hit his 1-year clean!) Anyways, he takes medicine for the heroine part of his addiction, basically it is a pill that he takes that tricks the brain into thinking he is using heroine when in fact he actually isn't, because it has the same effect or high as heroine but it much easier to get off of. It is a physically and mentally addictive drug, literally your body feels like it is shutting down and your dying (when you first get off of it) and mentally it is addictive just like other drugs, crack included. A lot of drugs like crack are psychologically addictive, it is the habit itself, even just buying a rock would make him feel better. The high that a person gets from crack only lasts a short period of time, it is a large part the rituals a person does before and during it that is addictive. So addition can kind of be both psychological or physiological. This argument ties it with Your body on Pot, adding more personal insight to that topic.

Social Construct: Beauty

When I was younger, like in 1st and 2nd grade I don't think what I looked like and how I dressed was that big of a concern for me, but as I got older it became a very important thing, even in third grade I would spend 15 minutes trying to get my hair into the perfect ponytail. Why? Where did I even get the notion of how my hair should be or what type of clothes I should be wearing. The answer, from everywhere; from my mom trying on clothes, the tv shows I watched, looking at the models in my mom's magazine, my friend's older siblings. As women in this culture we are socially constructed to want to look a certain way, to feel that in order to fit in, to have friends, to have a good time, to ve able to accept ourselves we need to wear our hair this way, and dress ourselves in these clothes. When you go into any store the pictures of the models are beautiful and the clothes they are wearing look great on them, everyone on magazines look gorgeous and happy, thousands of commercials for losing weight; gym memberships, food companies, pills, diet this, low fat this. In our culture it is almost impossible to go somewhere and have nothing to remind you of your appearance, but it does not feel like its blatantly pointing things out, sometimes it just feels normal like everyday life. Our culture is in our bodies to the point where you dont have to even think about why you want to look a certain way its just second nature. The advertisement of beauty is such a part of life that when you see a magazine of pretty women you dont think about how this picture and ones like it have shaped the way you feel about yourself and your appearance your entire life.

Times they are a changing

While Becker does make some fairly good points, I think that some of them have become somewhat outdated and in the future might become even further from how pot was both viewed and used when he wrote about the subculture of pot.  One of the the reasons that I think this is because what people think as "pot" or "weed" has actually changed greatly from the 1960's.  One of the main differences is that the potency of marijuana has increased almost ten fold from advanced breeding techniques used by both illegal growers and medicinal growers.  This makes the whole smoking correctly less important.  Also in places like California where marijuana is legal for medical purposes they have used oils to extract the THC and used it to make a variety of goods including chap-stick that will get you high.  This same potency difference also brings up the question that if it is that much more potent it will be easier to get much higher and you would feel the effects and not have to think about them.  While I am not admitting or denying using marijuana, when you get high, you know it.  As far as needing an internal guide for smoking marijuana, with the popularization of it's use though movies like "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle" everyone knows that when you smoke marijuana you get hungry, and everyone knows that stoners love listening to music to which there is a fairly strong correlation.  This has made pot knowledge much more mainstream which kind of eliminates the need for an internal guide.  I read the entire article and some of the things did make a great deal of sense, however with the way the culture of marijuana has gone in my opinion it has outdated some of his ideas.  I do agree with his discussion about going from not accepting the use of marijuana to not really caring if friends or people around you do it, since I did have much different thoughts about it before college.

Maybe she's born with it? Maybe she's not...

When I was three, I was already in my mother’s makeup. As I expertly smeared lipstick on my eyelids, it didn’t occur to me to question why I felt the need to experiment with my mom’s makeup. If someone were to ask me what compelled me to put on my mother’s makeup, I probably would have replied with a straight-up answer such as, “To be pretty.” Makeup on women has created a sub-culture of a woman’s need to be perceived as beautiful. In Becker’s article he says that you have to learn to smoke in a way that produces enjoyable effects. I would argue that make up wearing women have learned to wear makeup in a way that produces others to create a positive effect, the effect being attention from others. I believe that by seeing my mother and other women, I learned a behavior and the standards of how to look and act were already set by the tender age of three. Susan Bordo’s argument holds true to what I’m saying here.  She says that when women change their bodies it creates a whole culture of women’s attitudes about beauty and their self-perception. I think that by seeing others have this makeup on and the positive reinforcement that surrounds a culture where women wear makeup changes girls’ behaviors and feelings. This culture of makeup being considered “beautiful” influences girls to the point it becomes instinctual to experiment with makeup. This leads me to believe that any type of behavior, if it catches on can spark a certain subcultures mentality, and eventually causing a mentality to become an instinct. For example, a sub-culture of  men, it’s against their instinct to wear feminine colors because their surroundings pressure them not to. It’s interesting to think about what behaviors are simply human nature and which behaviors are taught and then become human instinct.

Get your lighters, roll that sticky, let's get higher!

Those who are in the high school/college student age range are socially constructed to believe that smoking pot is the cool thing to do. Being a freshman, a common question floating around when meeting new people is “do you smoke?” If you say no, that person may not even be interested in becoming friends anymore because it is one way that they cannot identify with you. In Howard Becker’s article, he argues that a person must be taught the proper techniques in order to become high. With all of the peer pressure presented in the teenage years, I feel that it is easy for us to learn how to get high. Whenever I hear first timer’s stories, the majority of them start off with someone who has a lot of experience. I am also in this category. My older brother thought it would be a great idea to show me the ropes and the subculture of becoming a marijuana user at quite a young age. Although he doesn’t fall into the stereotypical look of someone who smokes pot, a lot of my friends do. We tend to identify those who smoke weed as people with long hair, clothes 3 sizes too big, and school drop outs. Also, in the article and as a society, we signify someone being high when they laugh at everything, are very hungry, and become lazy. The article claims that smoking pot isn’t addictive and I agree with this statement. I think most people go through a phase where they want to fit in, so they have their fun throughout the teenage years, but when they find a job they want to keep, they can easily quit. People may even have a different outlook on smoking since they could now be socially constructed to think it is not professional.

Social Construction creates shoppers

Social construction creates what type of shoppers we are based on our income which is also associated with our social class. We learn how to shop from what others buy. If one person sees someone else with similar income wear Dolce & Gabbana shoes then he or she too will be sure to pick some up a pair on his or her next shopping trip. Those that can afford to spend more when shopping do not try to save and buy articles of clothing that would be more cost effective, they buy what they can afford. These tend to end up being items that are on the high end of the pricing scale for those that make only an adequate income to get by month by month. But, those who can afford that without feeling the least bit worried about dropping over $200 on a pair of jeans do it every time they go shopping. Here inter-textuality happens when it continues over and over again because we see throughout history that those who are more financially stable are able to afford the finest clothing of their time. Then we as subjects allow the culture to continue on this way as well as produce new ways to move forward with it. It is evident from even the earliest times that this is how it was and even today we still see it this way. For example, instead of seeing big hoop skirts with fancy high end cloth and lace today those who are wealthy shop for expensive brands that are identifiable objects to high society such as coach, ralph lauren, and Gucci that are used as a sign of their economic standing. Due to what brand someone wears it can be read as a symbol to see what type of person he or she is because it is associated with income and even personality.

Zac Efron brushing Barbie's hair? Probably.

file:///Users/mmiar88/Downloads/images-8.jpeg

A few days ago, I was walking through Target and I so happened to walk into the kid section where they have wall after wall of toys. What I came across, was not simply a giant Darth LEGO, but I noticed signs that I never have before. Or at least, not payed attention to. I stopped dead in my tracks and just stood facing the rows of toys... and I started to be able to read these isles. There was a DISTINCT divide between what were obviously (or maybe not so obviously to he/she NOT in CSCL 1001) the "boy isles" and the "girl isles". car tracks swirled across the boys floor while the girl isles had bouquets of flowers stamped on their floor. I also notices that the walls behind where all the toys were hanging, in the boys isles were blue, and behind the girls' toys, the walls were pink. LEGO's were only found in the boys, while Barbie could only be found in the girls. It became entirely clear to me why there is such a distinct line between boys and girls when they are children. The kids, or "subjects" if you will, are taught at a young age that in their culture THIS is what it means to be a little boy, and if you want to be the RIGHT kind of little girl, you play with THESE toys in the pink isles. However, of course it's not that obvious...because of the culture we are surrounded by, and grow up in, as young girl and her friend walk through the isles of Target, they are automatically drawn into the pink isles because it is what they are programmed to be drawn to. Even down to the objects themselves, you won't see two little girls boxing each other on the packaging of the giant Hulk hands, nor will you see little boys happily brushing through Barbie's hair on another packaging. Once you open your eyes to it, it becomes SO obvious how media and our culture influence who we are. How creepy is that? Almost as creepy as when I Googled "brushing Barbie's hair" and a picture of Zac Efron showed up. yikes.

The concept of Addiction

Howard Becker's "Becoming a Marijuana User" illustrates the idea that smoking marijuana is a social construction and the feeling of addiction is a controversial issue. Whether it's smoking marijuana, cigarettes, or shopping or taking some kind of drugs, there is an issue of whether our brains are creating the addiction because we like the social concept of doing that action or if we are really addicted.

One personal example would be taking drugs, for example, allergy medication. Before, when I was in high school, I had problems with allergy and getting puffy eyes and mouth. I went to the doctor's to get tested and they prescribed me allergy medicine to cease the puffiness. However, they said that the puffiness occurring would eventually subside with time and to this day, I am still taking medication. Now when I stop taking medication, the feeling of becoming puffy again would appear, yet is that due to the fact that I know I'm not taking my medication and bring that feeling upon myself or is it because I really need the medication? This example signifies how addiction can be viewed from two positions, the idea that it really is addiction and the idea of the brain making one addicted.

Another example of addiction is my father smoking cigarettes before. Since he was a teenager, he smoked cigarettes, partly because of the culture. Therefore, this is an example of smoking cigarettes being a social construction just as how marijuana was in Becker's article. It was supposedly an addiction for him, however, when my little brother complained to him about the odor of his cigars, he quit smoking without any hesitation. That must mean that smoking is really just a way to link with other people and the culture of society if quitting smoking is really that easy to do. So therefore, the addiction to marijuana must also be just a way to link with others socially.

The docile body of horseback riding

In 6^th grade I used to horseback ride. It started from a love of horses and grew to a weekly activity of lessons. I use this example to talk about the docile body. Of the key terms, I feel this is one of the harder ones to specifically nail down and define. However, I’m going to give it a shot. Starting out riding, I knew nothing about the proper ways to ride or treat a horse. However, throughout the year I learned how to key the horse into my movements or tell the animal to walk, trot, canter, gallop, or jump simply by using my body to give signals (squeeze the horse behind the flank, make certain clicking noises, clearly say ‘walk’ etc.) . In time, it grew to a point where I was unconscious of the movements I was making because at a quick decision making rate, I barely had time to register my movements before they were needed to be done (docile body). The horse and I worked together to complete jumping exercises successfully. Looking back now, my lessons throughout the year were, in a way, constructing my body to be a horseback rider. On the other hand, the horse I rode was already trained and socially constructed to react to my promptings in a certain way also. Sure, some of the horse’s actions were more attributed to nature (as in I’d squeeze behind the flank which would activate the muscles as a queue to move). However, some were due to nurture, as in the horse responding to my clicking noises. In the wild, no horse would take that as a queue to get moving faster which means the horse had to be trained to respond in that way. It appears horseback riding for competition is a socially constructed activity, complete with norms and a subculture to accompany it.

Students by choice?

So we're all in college. Every year we do the same meet and greet - Name, year in school, major, etc. Have you ever wondered why we're students? I mean sure we have our reasons but there's a lot more to it.

After reading Becker's article, a funny thought popped into my head - we are all taught to be students from a young age. There are numerous learned behaviors which lead us to our student occupations. I would argue that these behaviors are a consequence of social construction, that is, the process of becoming a student is not natural and is a product of concepts and stimuli within our society. Did you consciously decide to become a student? Did you have a choice to attend school or not when you were younger? Most likely not.

At the age of 5 or so, we're told by our parents that it's time for kindergarten. We get to go shopping for a cool backpack, some new shoes, maybe a sweet lunch box and then it's off to the races. . .for 12 years and then an additional 4 if we decide to go college. We meet friends, we socialize, and we're all in it together. I think that's the kicker! Most everyone goes to school and those that don't aren't part of the group or those who make up the counter-culture - I know I've made a few judgements about people who dropped out of school after 16 or those who didn't continue on to college. But, I have to take a step back and ask myself why?

Continuing along the lines of Becker, there's a culture behind schooling and being a student. Again, we are given a sense of belonging, of forward motion to some goal. But, it takes a few times to get going doesn't it? A few days to make friends, to remember your kindergarten teacher's name, to remember which cubby you have and where your shoes go, to get used to asking for permission to use the bathroom, to get used to lining up single file, the list goes on. Eventually it takes and I don't think it's a far stretch to say that every characteristic of students is learned.

Thanks for reading,

Marcus

Being High is a Social Construction

I couldn't agree more with Howard Becker's article, "Becoming a Marihuana User." After reading it, I just sat there and though about how right he is about everything he wrote. Learning to get high while smoking pot is a social construction. Culture tells us that when someone is high, they get really tired, usually referred to the term "couch-locked", generally is really hungry and has the "munchies," and thinks everything is funny and is constantly laughing or giggling at things that wouldn't normally be funny. These are all things that signify being high. If this sub-culture did not construct the "rules" and behaviors of becoming high, no one would really know whether they are high or not. First time users could think they are high just because they are "smoking" pot, even though they don't feel the "correct" effects. Becker also talks about how a novice usually doesn't get high the first time they smoke because they don't know how to do it correctly.

I recall the first time one of my close friends tried it; she was a little scared because she didn't know how being high felt. My friends, who smoke pot all the time, reassured her that that she probably won't get high the first time because it isn't common for beginners to get the feeling. She took a few hits, probably more than a first timer should have, and surprisingly got really high. All of my friends were in shock that she actually got that high too. I assured them that they were just really good social guides to properly teach her how to smoke it right the first time. While she was high, she laughed at EVERYTHING, and felt really tired and sluggish. She couldn't really keep her eyes open and was definitely couch-locked. If it wasn't for these social cues, we probably wouldn't have known that she was high.

Learning to be High

In “Becoming a Marijuana User” Becker explains how every action is a social construct and as a result everything associated with this action is learned though cultural knowledge. Becker uses the example of smoking pot, explaining that one must learn how to become high from experienced guides and social ques. In class we touched on that fact that there is some chemical reaction to smoking pot, but according to Becker for one to truly be “high” they must invoke the behaviors of the pot smoking sub-culture.

The idea that smoking pot has its own culture with rules and practices it very interesting. Although it may seem odd at first that one must learn to be “high”, if you think about it the concept it makes sense. Long before someone starts to smoke they are given cultural clues of how they should behave and what there likes and dislikes in this area should be. Movies like Half Baked, Harold and Kumar, or anything by Kevin Smith present signs of smoking pot, which we as a subject learn and then invoke if we hope to fit into the pot smoking sub-culture. All of these movies and other cultural texts (pot leaf posters, Bob Marley’s music, etc…) tell us “when you high you should be hungry, think cartoons and really funny….” And because we have the cultural knowledge our passive bodies invoke these practices when/if we get high without even thinking about it. Had one not be presented with these cultural signs and they smoked pot would it be the same experience? Becker would argue that it would not be. This user would not get fully “high” because they did not express the right social ques and as a result would miss the cultural and social aspect of the experience.