It's a wrap

1. Intro: (2 mins)

1. Knowledge production and representation.

2. The whole point of this presentation is to discuss how we live in a society of survelance which controls and modify/restricts our behaviour in terms of sexual difference. And we are going to demonstrate this through comparing the modern day makeover to the the ideology of the Garden of Eden.

2. Introduce Video which is going to outline the key concepts of Butler’s theory of heteronormativity (6 mins)

3. How is heteronormativity represented in the Garden of Eden? (Tom) (1 min and 20 seconds)

[Just to clarify the way in which we've used the Garden of Eden story from the book of genesis, I'd like to point out that we've taken it purely as a text rather than as any kind of historical event or historical document. We're going to look at the Garden of Eden purely within a modern discursive framework. This isn't to say we aren't going to deal with the way it's imagined as a historical document as this is quite central to it's heteronormativity. The fact is, as a text, it's taken as a model, perhaps even in some cases as an original and an ideal, to which human life must conform and aspire.

I think that the model that the Garden of Eden proposes is almost a model of heteronormativity and androcentrism in itself. Adam is created as this kind of pure being, self sustaining and without the need for another, his masculinity is the default, in fact, originally is no alternative and no Otherness. Adam's male body is the model for humanity, in fact, it is humanity because he is the only human. Eve, on the other hand, is created as the fulfilment of Adam's desire for a mate. She is something drawn out and separated from his body, the human body, and rendered as Other. She is a copy of the original, Adam, but also she is a supplement to the humanity he embodies. As well as being androcentric though, the story also creates and enforces a particular heteronormative understanding, that woman is created by the male gaze, and exists purely to fulfil a role in the male symbolic order. She achieves her meaning through reference to men. As the Bible puts it, her desire “will always be for her husband.”]

4. How is heteronormativity and the ideology of the garden of eden infiltrated (1.5 min) contemporary society? (Ina) – (It is not obsolete: The Biblical narrative has permeated our current society but do they have the same significance now-can we talk of the past with present language?).

1. The belief that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary categories, male and female [and that the default human relationship is between the two with men being androcentrically prioritized], has influenced contemporary society in several ways:b) Social life in heteronormative society is set up in such a way as toprivilege and revere the (male) masculine and to relegate the feminine to objects of ridicule or desire. For example, we can see this in women driver jokes, wife jokes, mother-in-law jokes etc. Furthermore, a whole industry ranging from hard porn and prostitution to soft-core advertising markets women’s bodies as objects of consumption by men.c) Behaviour that is incorrectly and essentially considered to be Lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual normally strongly disapproved --> often results in an internalisation of homophobia. For example, most heteronormative societies only have boxes for “male” and “female” on administrative forms. We have Women’s and Men’s washrooms, but few spaces for those who consider themselves transgendered [rather than this, I'd say 'without allowing for any alternate forms of identity, such as the sexually diverse space occupied by transgendered individuals' or something, it just sounds more general.] Moreover, the institution of marriage is usually been viewed as valid in the eyes of the state only if existing between a man and a woman. The use of the word 'gay' and ‘queer’ to describe something stupid or unfortunate.d) instant surgery of babies with indecisive genitals to fix them into one gender category (explain this a bit)

[However, heteronormativity goes beyond these surface manifestations of prejudice and also represents the unconscious adoption of a 'neutral' position which favours heterosexuality, and also maleness, as normal, and thus presents homosexuality and femaleness as a supplementary Other. This shows itself in our society through our use of language (such as how 'man' is used as a signifier for humanity rather than just men, while 'woman' remains specific) but also, the way in which social structures and kinship ties such are implicitly heterosexual unless we specify otherwise. Marriage, for example, is by default a heterosexual institution unless we specify we are talking about a supplementary 'gay' marriage. Finally, and most importantly for this presentation, heteronormativity also manifests in the way we by default look at our bodies as being for the purpose of attracting mates and ultimately as tools towards reproduction, which cuts out and supercedes any alternate function they might have.]

5. To what extent is the garden of eden ideology, sexual difference and performativity packaged up and sold to us through TV shows such as how to look good naked or what not to wear? (Thea) [Make explicit the links back to the Garden of Eden and the similarities therein]
How do these programmes reinforce and modify/control behaviour? Panopticon - Garden of Eden/360degree [Gaze of God, make it explicit.]

6. How does this type of self-image programme reinforce the masculinity/ feminity binary? Cattle proding, Class, [Woman as the desirer of man – as in the bible.]

7. Subjectivity in the Makeover
The 'true' self.

The Lacanian mirror stage (or better still psychic mimesis, but I need to read up on the mimesis) as a metaphor for Makeover Shows - In the makeover, the 'unrealised' body (innocent of its own insufficiency and ugliness) is held up to a mirror (literally or metaphorically) and reconstructed. Parts which were formerly incorporated into the boundaries of the body ('bad' haircuts, clothing style etc) are cut out first metaphorically and literally, and the self is recreated around socially acceptable perameters, this self then becomes the 'true' self, which is normally affirmed by presenters who express pleasure and affirm the naturalness of the body which has been created. [I can expand on this because essentially the whole process of a makeover is a kind of psychic mimesis.] In the same way, by eating of the tree of knowledge Adam and Eve become aware of their own bodies and clothe themselves. Just as the previously innocent female subject is forced to adapt their gaze to that of the male subject in order to understand their inadequacy, Adam and Eve see themselves through the eyes of God by achieving self awareness and are thus aware of their shame. [I'll try to make this clearer, make the link more natural and produce some kind of conclusion from it, but I need to read some more.]



7. Susan Boyle case study [Include something about how the nature of her image and identity is the subject of battles for control. People wanting to keep her in her ‘natural’ state represents a kind of reverse-makeover in itself. They’re trying to enforce a ‘true’ self for some kind of personal end.]

8. Commodification of the body-adverting, purchase
A woman through is portrayed as nothing more than just another commodity. In these public displays of surveillance and control of what is considered “normal”, “acceptable” “sexy”, "seductive" and “desirable”, audience is never just an observer. Through these (makeover) programmes we observe these comodifications of women as though they are set apart and separated from the real us. Within these programmes the gender roles are reinforced, for example woman as –“mother”. “housewife”, “sexually desirable woman", " sex object”, that must please and tease, pleasure, gratify, entertain her man and by looking sexually desirable and attractive she can contribute to his social status. The biblical narrative of Garden of Eden has given her a role that she is expected to subscribe to and what she must be "naturally" good at-which is seducing and producing (babies). It is strongly suggested and reinforsed by the make over shows, such as Trinny and Suzanna. These images of commodified women entangle us within process of signification, by being spectators ourselves we complete this process of signification. As we already have the knowledge through the Biblical narrative of a woman as a sinner, guilty, seductress, worthless, in constant need for improvement, incomplete, secondary to a man and also woman as lacking. Women themselves also reinforce the need to compensate for her/their lack(s) through subjecting themselves through these public scrutinies. These negative characteristics are strongly supported and infiltrated in society by the Garden of Eden narrative. Even if this knowledge and the fact that it comes from the Biblical narrative is unconscious, and for the most part it is, this aspect makes the issue even more tragic and unsolvable. These popular programmes reinforce the gender binaries. Public-the spectators of these make over programmes and as well as women themselves who take part in these shows reinforce gender binaries. Also it is strongly anchored and pumped up by the patriarchal and capitalist relations. To maintain the effectiveness of the Garden of Eden narrative is commercially viable (feasible) on many levels. Therefore it is very likely that it will just continue to get endorsed and encourage. Especially by the contemporary media. Depends how much something is at stake? Fancy a new automobil, simon?

The cultural codes are entrusted with the two fold function of maintaining the social order's dominant binary oppositions and providing the means necessary to perpetuate the so-called natural hierarchies in the social order through its literature, history, cinema, religion, law, and so on. Eve is as submissive, inferior, and less fully developed. Normality has been to Abnormality as Adam has been to Eve; or, put in a slightly different way: Adam is to Normality as Eve is to Abnormality. As with the creation of Eve, abnormality is understood by that which Normality is not; abnormality is defined by the Lack.
The cultural codes are entrusted with the two fold function of maintaining the social order's dominant binary oppositions and providing the means necessary to perpetuate the so-called natural hierarchies in the social order through its literature, history, cinema, religion, law, and so on. Eve is as submissive, inferior, and less fully developed. Normality has been to Abnormality as Adam has been to Eve; or, put in a slightly different way: Adam is to Normality as Eve is to Abnormality. As with the creation of Eve, abnormality is understood by that which Normality is not; abnormality is defined by the Lack.

Solutions?!
This conscious transformation and peoples resistence to violence through surveillance and control marks the essence of the process of how women can and do redefine their roles and their intrinsic worth in ways that defy the power of the master narrative of woman as evil, sinner, and full of guilt, and in need to apologize and make up for the fact that she not “complete”..



[I'm not convinced we should use Susan Boyle. While she's topical, we already effectively have two case studies, and we have loads of material already. We should definately leave the stuff on the blog, but I think for the presentation I'm not convinced we need her.]

Psychoanalytic take on the Garden of Eden narrative. (from the article posted couple of weeks ago)
Adam was defined in the affirmative and Eve was defined by that which Adam was not; Eve was defined by The Lack.
Eve was created as a consequence of Adam's Lack - as in his lack of companionship-- and Eve was created to fill this Lack - as in to fill Adam's loneliness. And, at the same time, Eve's creation was a cause of Adam's Lack - as in Eve's creation was to create an anatomical Lack (of a rib) inside of Adam. Eve, in her very creation and existence, was the living and breathing embodiment of the consequence of Adam's Lack, the cause of Adam's Lack, and the solution for Adam's Lack ... all at the same time. Eve became responsible for the loss of the Language of Adam through her gullibility, her innocence, and her curiosity. Eve became responsible for the loss of the Language of Adam through her gullibility, her innocence, and her curiosity. She was to eat the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and Wisdom. Eve became the living and breathing embodiment of the Forbidden Fruit. And with Eve's earthly appetites and carnality came the Casting out from the Garden ... into mortality, Death, and the decay of the Flesh. The Language of Adam had been scientific, rational, objective, and primary in juxtaposed-hyphenation to the Language of Eve which was of the corporeal world of the senses, the carnal world of touch, the language of the body, textures, and blends.... The Language of Eve speaks the image of woman as flesh, temporality, and earthiness. Carnal Knowledge in the Garden of Eden was to be found in the shame of one's nakedness and to be cast out and removed from the Garden of Eden.

P



[Conclusion ideas]
[One thing I think I'd like to make clear before we finish is that, in doing this presentation, we have quite unfairly and quite arbitrarily grouped things together which are in now way intrinsically related. In a way, we've constituted heteronormativity ourselves as a discursive practice and as the subject of our knowledge, investigation and critique. The link between the Genesis story and the format of a Makeover programme, is completely arbitrary and based on a fairly loose demarcation of both as heteronormative. In fact, in many ways it might be argued we've enforced a completely alien discourse onto both by forcing them into comparison with one another. I'd go so far as to say that if you went out and randomly asked people to try and link the two, they'd probably have trouble doing so. It's only because we've collated these disparate fragments of knowledge into a discursive formation, heteronormativity, which allows us to see them as similar that we're able to group them together and create a presentation about them.

What I hope we're showing now is that we're aware of this, and in fact it's partially intentional. There is no natural organization of ideas and thoughts, after all, and we don't feel what we're doing is really any less relevant or less natural than if we'd followed up more 'obvious' links. True, we've drawn some pretty arbitrary parallels between aspects of religion and pop culture, but then, why is the separation between the two any less arbitrary in itself. Our point is that heteronormative elements, whether you have an understanding of them as heteronormative or not, do permeate and flow through diverse strands of our cultural life, and perhaps in this case the creation of new discursive practices is justified when it can provide a means towards changing the social fabric itself. There is, after all, no neutral discursive position, and thus no way to stand on the fence.] (1 minute 30 seconds)

[I'm going to keep checking the blog all evening, so as we add more to this post I'll keep updating the conclusion and I'll try and come out with some point which summarizes and brings the whole thing together. For now though..]

Our society and its narrative and discursive structure is permeated with heteronormative elements to such a point that many of the narratives and ideas it produces are inherently heteronormative. What we've demonstrated is that strands which might normally be considered quite distinct (religious texts and pop culture) both contain traces of this heteronormative legacy.

[Also, throughout the presentation we need to touch on the heterosexual matrix and heterosexual / homosexual as well as male / female. The heterosexual matrix is interesting in regards to bible stuff because it implies that heterosexuality needs homosexuality to exist. What's happening in the bible isn't heterosexuality because there's no need for a word for it, there is no alternative. However, this does kind of just confirm our point.. if there's not considered to be any need of an alternative, isn't that ultimate kind of heteronormativity?]