Sunday, December 12, 2010

TV, Will You Marry Me?

Tara Ekmekci

Prof. Wexler

English 313

13 Dec. 2010

TV, Will You Marry Me?

Preface:

There is something tragic arising with this new postmodern self. It has turned into creating a new “depth-less tradition,” rather than exercising what modernists intended in the first place. Modernism was a reaction against earlier literary movements, especially realism. Up until the 20th century, mimesis was the dominant theory. Mimesis would imitate reality. Literature was a mirror one held up to nature; a way to accurately reflect reality. The goal of modernist writers was to break away from the slavery of the real representation of the world, and hale to the imagination of the individual. Modernist writers wanted to represent the subject, rather than a depiction of the object. There was a de-emphasis of the object being represented, and an emphasis on how the subject is the creator of the object. In other words, modernists were trying to be more real than realism.

There was also a demoralization of the self with the modern crisis of WWI and capitalism arising. There were new industrialized cities being created, where as William Wordsworth said, “people were half awake and half alive.” With the war, came a great loss— without purpose— along with alienation and dehumanization of the individual. The modernist movement began to grow and develop with “the promise of technological and social progress, urban development and the unfolding of the self” (Barker 183). Without tradition —that the modernist writers were trying to hold on to—society became full of isolated and dead people pursuing instinct and desire. The concern for needing tradition in an alienating world began during the period of modernism and two world wars. Unlike postmodernism today, modernist writers hoped for the love and understanding of tradition.

Is there any good arising from the individualization, commodification, and fragmentation of society? When post-modernism has no essential identity, how are its products—the people born during post-modern times—supposed to represent a true self?

Language, is the only way to communicate with one’s self and with other selfs. Without language there would be no understanding of the self. The postmodern self is a fragmented self. The person is an assembly of so many small fragments, pieced together to create a whole. Not only is the self created, it is "rearrang[ed], transform[ed] and correct[ed]" (Bordo 1099). With all the technology available to us today, god— as the creator— has been replaced by surgeons. This postmodern rhetoric of choice and technology has allowed people (mostly women) to constantly find a reason to be dissatisfied with their bodies. This dissatisfaction leads to the postmodern plastic discourse. In this discourse, "all sense of history and all ability (or inclination) to sustain cultural criticism, to make the distinctions and discriminations which would permit such criticism, have disappeared" (Bordo 1104). This means that because the postmodern self is relative, no one passes judgment anymore. There is this "you do what you want and I'll do what I want" attitude in the air. This discourse no longer allows there to be an underlying truth.

Because of this, there is a postmodern angst developing. These non-judgmental people seem respectful towards the actions, comments, and opinions of individual others, but under that veil there are true bottled up opinions that are not voiced. Susan Bordo writes, "Television is of course, the great teacher here, our prime modeler of plastic pluralism" (Bordo 1104). Through this postmodern discourse, instead of judging each other or setting limits for the postmodern self, society finds television to be the exemplary role model. As long as someone on television says it looks beautiful, or it will make everything look and feel okay, then society feels that it is worthy of being mimicked. Technology has taken away the role of human contact and communication. The postmodern self has created a dialogic relationship with the television, rather than humans. With this said, how are relationships between male and female supposed to arise in this world lacking true communication? Is love based off traditional concepts anymore? Is there a decline in marriage? Has it become yet another institution governing the lives of many? Living in the 21st century, in a time when identity is constantly produced and reproduced, the fragmented idea of love and relationships is constructed by the core of postmodern culture, television

In Elizabeth Gilbert’s true story, Eat Prey Love, Elizabeth is on a radical quest to find her true self. Elizabeth is unsatisfied with the cultural norms. She is tired of the traditional path she took towards marriage, and is not ready to complete it by forming a family. Elizabeth has come to a point in her life where a home, car, job, and an outgrown soul-mate no longer suffice. The agony of living in this "in-between,”, where she's neither happy nor sad is far more painful than the thought of breaking both her and her husband's heart. Elizabeth finalizes the divorce and soon after is on a journey to find her true identity.

This film is comprised of bits and pieces of the radical, sex, and romantic comedy. This is the story of "girl divorces husband, girl finds a younger man, girl is not satisfied with younger man, girl tries to find herself, girl meets man again, girl and man fall in love." This film does not follow the typical arc of the romantic comedy, because "a romantic comedy is a film which has as its central narrative motor a quest for love, which portrays this quest in a light hearted way and almost always to a successful conclusion" (McDonald 9). This story is not about the quest for love. It is about the quest for spiritual love, faith, courage and happiness. It does not start out with a girl meeting a boy, it begins with a divorce.

Eat Pray Love, is a twisted version of a traditional romantic comedy, because there are so many sub-genres weaved into it that interrupt the linear play of the usual romantic comedy arc. After Elizabeth’s divorce, she finds a rebound partner. She is satisfied with his youth and free spirit, as well as their sexual connection. Although Elizabeth abolishes the idea of marriage, she also does not find happiness when she has no strings attached with her rebound partner. She realizes that finding another man is not going to be the solution to the void she is constantly experiencing. She still has no idea of what it means to have a true self.

Once Elizabeth realizes her relationship with the younger man needs to end, she decides to take a yearlong trip to Italy, India, and Bali. The film and Elizabeth are on this profound non-conservative journey of finding one’s true self through exploration. Now is it a postmodern characteristic for a woman to leave a traditional marriage in order to find her self? In today’s society, it is a rightful choice to be able to divorce and change one’s life. Even though there are people who disagree with one’s choice of divorce or taking off to different countries, no one is really able to force their opinion on each other in a postmodern society. Elizabeth is free to make her own decisions without worrying about their repercussions. She is unhappy and she has one life to live… right? There is not one truth when it comes to the happiness of an individual. Two people could have different perceptions on the idea of happiness and marriage. There are multiple truths available in a postmodern world. The sky is the limit, and Elizabeth can build her identity wherever she pleases.

What are the implications of this radial romantic film on its viewers? The truth is, it is not difficult for people to feel bored of their life and full of nothingness. It is only natural to grow conscious of an emptiness one can experience in their life. Barker writes, “Television is at the heart of image production, and the circulation of a collage of stitched together images that is core to postmodern cultural style” (Barker 203). Eat Prey Love justifies that “it is okay to want change!” The film throws images of travel, faith, love, self-reflection, beauty, nature and freedom that are unbelievably inviting. Does it speak to society as a whole? Is everyone who feels like Elizabeth able to pick up and indulge in a journey of self discovery? Realistically, there would be the issue of time, responsibility, and money! In order to find her true self, Elizabeth has the freedom and flexibility of using MONEY! Money is a commodity that very few people in the capitalist system are able to freely enjoy. When there are no means in enjoying the happiness Elizabeth experiences, films like Eat Prey Love only exist to convince people that traveling and cultural awareness is a cure to emptiness and loss of self.

Jean Baudrillard, is a French theorist who believes that postmodernism is a flow of superficial images: “He argues that a series of modern distinctions including the real and the unreal, the public and the private, art and reality have broken down, leading to a culture of simulacrum and hyperreality” (Barker 208). Hyeperreality is the overload of images and stimulations that television and visual advertisements provide to fascinate their viewers. Like Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson also sees the postmodern world as being depthless. This lack of depth goes back to the modernist writers who wanted to bring back tradition. Tradition is lacking in a postmodern world. This fragmented world of images, simulacrums, and blurring of boundaries creates a superficial distorted world. When truth is relative, how can the individual have a true identity? This means that identity is relative too.

The issue with postmodernism is the lack of self-control. People are bombarded with so many images and possible representations of life that there is this inability to be one true person. Yes, there is access to many cultures, countries, speed, ideal lives, romance, and technology, but which world does one pick? How can one person ever be satisfied with themselves or their chosen path, when there are so many bigger, better, and newer additions to society? Give the Twilight series for example; so many young girls are infatuated with the idea of love and vampires. Bram Stoker’s, Dracula, is a classic interstitial novel about horror, romance, history, science and nature. It depicts a love story through a systematic use of journal entries and real live events. There is a depth to his fiction writing, that today’s fiction films do not portray.

Although the existence of vampires is not plausible, Stoker’s Dracula is the history of a true character. Today, Isabella Swan is considered a pop idol for many girls. In Twilight, Isabella portrays a teenager who was never satisfied with her mundane life up until she meets Edward Cohen. Edward is portrayed as a dreamlike, white complexioned, pure, strong, smart, compassionate, and gentle hearted man. He is a vampire, and out of all the girls in his high school, he falls in love with Bella; a simple, depressed looking, brown haired, brown eyed girl who just moved to Forks, Washington. There is nothing wrong with the Twilight book series. It is a great example of a fiction novel that can be read to allow the young mind wander to imaginative places. The problem is, what television turns a novel into. When children view these images of love and surreal characters, they begin to obsess over something that is not real. This is a perfect example of the blurring of reality. Visualizing characters in a book is not the same as seeing live actors and actresses on television.

Television transforms the characters of Isabella and Edward into a commodity. Their love is unattainable. There is no such thing as a love between vampires. The idea of love shown through film is easily distorted! What businesses start doing is trying to sell this unattainable love. The media is saying, “You can not have your very own vampire, but you can buy his posters and t-shirts!” One sees children wearing Isabella Swan and Edward Cohen t-shirts, buying their backpacks, costumes, cups, folders, and games. They are creating their own identity through the identity of fiction characters. The scarier part of all this is that the actual actor and actress who plays Isabella and Edward are a couple in real life, representing that real life fairytales exist as well. There are big shopping centers like, Target, selling Isabella’s outfits. All she wears in the movie are regular pants and t-shits, but even that simplicity turns into something to buy in order to portray that same exact self.

The postmodern subjects are “Person’s composed not of one but of several, sometimes contradictory identities” (Barker 220). While learning psychology and biology, one always comes across the “nature vs. nurture” dilemma. Is one born with his/her knowledge, characteristics and specific traits, or is it all learned? Unable to prove this puzzle completely, let us say that it can be a combination of both. Two hundred years ago, children were born and either grew up in a wealthy traditional home, or on the streets. A wealthy child would be playing instruments, learning language and history, while the child who was working on enjoying playtime with the neighborhood kids, learned life through experience and daily adventures. There were not too many roads to take. You were either rich, or poor.

Today, if a boy is born to a high-income family, he has the money to buy all the games, toys, mechanics, cars, and latest technology possible. A girl begins to infatuate over obtaining the best material accessories possible, including an obsession over the latest teen pop star or adult actress. There is no time to play on the streets, because if children aren’t at home bombarded with homework, they are watching television, on the phone, or texting in order to relieve their stress. The definers of ideology are not the parents anymore, it is the media: “Primary definers are taken to be politicians, judges, industrialists, the police and so forth, that is, official agencies involved in the making of news events. In translating the primary definitions of news, the media, as secondary definers, reproduce the hegemonic ideologies associated with the powerful. They also translate them into popular idioms” (Barker 319). The time that most kids use to enjoy innocent and carefree leisure, turns into a moment where an overload of images are easily accessible by kids at all ages, due to the hegemonic control of computers and televisions.

Today, there is a loss of innocence and tradition beginning at a young age. When most of the time allocated for a child to develop in their early years is spent committed to following the latest trends, of course no true identity is formed. Everyone ends up owning the same accessories and thinking the same way: “The western search for identity is premised on the idea that there is such a ‘thing’ to be found” (Barker 217). Is there such thing as a true identity, or do fictional films like Twilight, or films that seem to imitate reality like Eat Prey Love, construct the way people feel about themselves. Barker writes, “Identity is not a thing but a description in language. Identities are discursive constructions that change their meanings according to time, place and usage” (Barker 217). There is no more room for imagination, because everything including the portrayal of originality is provided for us. John Fiske writes:

[T]elevision broadcasts programs that are replete with potential meanings, and…

its attempts to control and focus this meaningfulness into a more singular preferred meaning that performs the work of dominant ideology.

We shall need to interrogate this notion later, but I propose to start with a traditional semiotic account of how television makes, or attempts to make, meanings that serve the dominant interests in society, and how it circulates these meanings amongst the wide variety of social groups that constitute its audiences. (Fiske 1087)

When there is no room left to think critically, because everything is spoon fed, how then can there be the urge to imagine one’s own way of thinking out of the box.

Capitalism is the invisible force driving these notions of technology, production, and exploitation. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism states that "under capitalism, human relations are increasingly characterized by more or less thorough alienation, monetization, and commodification. Relationships between worker and owner, buyers and sellers, are mediated through the things produced. These objects become objects of fetishism- seeming to have an objective existence of their own that obscures the individual labor involved in their production" (650). Man is equal to the products they produce. You hear Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross, addressing a worker as "nothing" based on the kind of car he drives. What does this mean? A person who drives a Honda is not half the person who drives a BMW? In between the lines there is a shadow of freedom which emanates when people utter that everyone has the chance to move on up, but reality is that the more you make, the more you crave more. The more you crave, the more life turns into a search for more money, rather than a search for true purpose, and self. This is why, today, there is a lack of true essential self.

In The Communist Manifesto Karl Marx says, "The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation" (659). How then can romance exist between a man and woman? Capitalism, production, money, and capitalist hierarchy play a role in choosing a marriage partner. Getting married means having two incomes, being able to make enough money to buy land or a home together. It can also mean marrying into a family who is part of the exploiters rather than the exploitees. Then there is the yearning of the workers to climb up the ladder, and assume a greater capitalist role. We then have the married, stable women, like Elizabeth, realizing that her ideal picture of marriage is shattered, because she becomes aware of the lack of self and wants to find her real place in this postmodern, capitalist society by traveling. Traveling requires money— that most people do not easily obtain— and after a year, she needs to return back to the reality of a capitalist system. She needs to unfortunately return back to the very thing she was fleeing from. Unfortunately, trying to find oneself in this postmodern society means going in constant, endless circles.

Work Cited

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications,

2008.Print.

Bordo, Susan. "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture."

Fiske, John. “Television Culture.”

Marx, Karl. The Communist Manifesto. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticsim.

2nd ed. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York, NY, 2010.647-660. Print.

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. London: Wallflower

Press, 2007. Print.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Do the Positives Outweigh the Negatives of Technology?

outdoors > indoors


Between 1912-1945, Modernist writers were writing about alienation, fragmented lives (montage), and a lack of past tradition. For writers like T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, bringing back the classics was vital. Today, as I observe the conversations I see my friends and even younger generations engage themselves with, I feel sorry for the society we all have become a part of. Starting with ages 7 to 14, there is definitely a lack of innocent fun and real childhood that consists of enhancing the brain through outdoor activities, face to face interaction, games, books, and real quality time with one another.

Has the quality of life become better or worse with the development of new technology?

I believe the people who are best served by technology are definitely making great use of their time and expertise. Engineers, inventors, computer designers and computer professionals are moving forward in the business they love and excel in. Are their accomplishments positively serving their buyers? Have I gained something valuable by being able to use an I-Phone, I-Pod, I-Pad, video-games, and computer games? Or is easy access, speed, light weight and small size making us individuals lazier and more spoiled?

Although the I-phone makes my life easier with emails and urgent communications, there is this dependancy that frightens me. When the thought of misplacing my phone crosses my mind, there is this unnecessary panic. These are the reactions and obsessive qualities that technology has instilled in its users, including myself. Kids no longer want to explore gardens or play ding dong ditch outside, they choose staying indoors in front of the computer.

Computers and new found electronics are making money and satisfying off all of us, great, but there needs to be this balance established by parents from an early age. A child, teen, or adult needs to understand that these machines can enhance the quality of life, but they should not replace life itself. Life is about exploring, living, breathing, and learning new things; not sitting, typing, searching the web and flipping through people's facebooks. It has become absurd how girls look at people's face book pages craving to have eachother's dresses, hair, amount of friends, quotes, pictures, comments, and statuses. There is a constant search for something new that makes the self conscious person feel like they need to step up their face book life in order to fit in and seem "cool." This artificial creation and yearning to be something they are not is seen all through out face book and it is SAD!

Yes, there was a time when I loved uploading albums and constantly exploring face book, - when it was new and unfamiliar to me- but pretty soon it's not hard for someone to sit back as a third person and laugh at the useless time people spend on face book. I leave this as an argument that will never be solved, because pop culture seems to dominate daily lives predominantly. Therefore, I leave it to the parents to take the "back to tradition" advice of Eliot and Pound and find a way to balance the activities their kids partake in.


Thursday, November 25, 2010

"So What!"

While reading John Fiske's "Television Culture," I was able to relate to most of his observations. He talks about the ideology behind the attempts television consciously makes for their audience. He begins by discussing the "codes of television." Fiske writes, "A code is a rule-governed system of signs, whose rules and conventions are shared amongst members of a culture, and which is used to generate and circulate meanings in for that culture" ( Fiske 1088). He brings to the reader's attention the various codes of romance, villainy, patriarchy, society, capitalism, etc that film uses. There are implicit and explicit codes. Fiske claims, "the codes of class, race, and morality are working less openly and more questionably:their ideological work is to naturalize the correlation of lower class, non American with the less attractive, less moral, and therefore villainous..." (Fiske 1093). Furthermore, in "Televesion Culture" Fiske finds feminist relations between the heroine and villainess. Both women "pretty themselves [while] the men are planning" (Fiske 1093). You see the patriarchal code being put into play here in a society where there the value of men is placed higher than that of women.

What message is television trying to give us?
Is it a culture of its own?
Does society imitate television's ideology or does television imitate reality?

I believe television does imitate reality and the different social norms and hierarchies, but has a negative way of re-enforcing the capitalist class distinctions. There is a type casting of gender and race that stretches the already existing stereotypes.

So we know all these facts about film codes and ideology; is it something that will ever change?

Fiske, John. "Television Culture."

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Which came first? The Chicken or the Egg?




Does life imitate Seinfeld or does Seinfeld imitate life? The main characters, Jerry, George, Cramer and Elaine have their own language. The language, euphemisms and manner of insider speaking can be called signs. One could see culture as a system of signs. Jacques Derrida and Ferdinand de Saussure were structuralists who focused on signs. For example, Saussure said that the signifier, cat, visually brings an image to our heads. This image signifies the mental idea of the signifier. My idea of a cat is connected to the image I have in my head. Now the word cat or the pronunciation of cat might mean something else depending on the country or culture you are in. Therefore the relationship between the signifier and signified is arbitrary, because a context is needed. Context changes between different people and cultures. Saussure says there is an arbitrary relationship between signs based on context, but he also says that there is a moment of PRESENCE where CAT means CAT. On the other hand, Derrida says there is no moment of PRESENCE. He says signs are always unstable and in play.
Now I will raise the question, "Does Seinfeld use a language that we all globally understand or does it depend on the culture and society we present Seinfeld too?"
I believe that in the United States, Seinfeld, has a moment of presence like Saussure states, but it might not be the same when you change the context of whom it is being presented to. Someone in France or India will not understand the inside joke unless that person is semi aquatinted with the language Seinfeld uses.
Also, does Seinfeld imitate real life? I don't believe this question is important. Of course the writer of Seinfeld was influenced by the culture and people around him, therefore he might have created Seinfeld based on his aesthetic talent, but he created it out of the society he was a part of. Seinfeld is both an entity of its own as well as a compilation of cultural and societal influences.

Monday, November 8, 2010

My Daily Time, Space and Place Geography

Anthony Giddens writes that there is a social division in cutlure called front space and back space. Front space is where we put up a front; where we formally put on a show to look presentable to others in the front space environment. Back space is where we relax and take the layer of make up off our face or prepare for the next layer we need to put on.
Depending on the time of day, we move through time and space. I wake up daily in my back space which is my home and get ready for school. I drive my car to school and park. My morning coffee creates a more keen working environment for me, since it is early in the morning. As I do this I cross paths with a variety of different people and limitations. Some days I need to take a different route to school. Other days I do not have enough time to wait in life for coffee.
As school comes to an end I get back into my car and drive to work. My work space is completely different than my school space. In school I feel free, enlightened, liberated with education. At work I feel constrained to observing the limitations and social structure of a male dominated capitalistic surrounding. The funny thing is, the dominant males are the authoritative ones, but not the intelligent ones. I encounter the same colleagues, speak to worried clients, and sit in front of my melancholy desk day after day.
As I drive home to begin my homework, I find myself somewhere between time and space. Not enough time in the day and not enough space for me to catch my breath.


Monday, November 1, 2010

The Post-Modern Self

Language is the only way to get through to the self. Without language there would be no understanding of the self. We are the result of many things. The Post-Modern self is a fragmented self. The person you think you are is an assembly of so many small montages, pieced together to create a whole. Not only is the self created, it is "rearrang[ed], transform[ed] and correct[ed]" (Bordo 1099). With all the technology available to us today, god as the creator has been replaced by surgeons. This rhetoric of choice and technology has allowed people (mostly women) to constantly find a reason to be dissatisfied with their bodies. This dissatisfaction leads to the post-modern plastic discourse. In this discourse, "all sense of history and all ability ( or inclination) to sustain cultural criticism, to make the distinctions and discriminations which would permit such criticism, have disappeared" (Bordo 1104). This means that because the post-modern self is relative, no one passes judgement anymore. There is this "you do what you want and I'll do what I want" attitude in the air. This no longer allows there to be an underlying truth. This causes the post-modern angst created by people walking around with an invisible veil. These people seem respectful towards the actions, comments and opinions of individual others, but under that veil is their true opinions that are bottled up.
"Television is of course, the great teacher here, our prime modeler of plastic pluralism" (Bordo 1104). Instead of judging each other or setting limits for this post-modern self, we find the television to be a better role model. As long as someone on TV says it looks beautiful, or it'll make everything okay, than it is worthy of being mimicked. Technology has taken the role of human to human contact. The post-modern self has a dialogic relationship with the TV rather than with humans. This is a major tragedy!

Bordo, Susan. "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture."

Monday, October 25, 2010

"I wish I was...I wish I had...I wish I looked like..."


Everything is comodified. I remember watching this when I was about ten years old. Now that I look back and think of the word globalization, we're exposed to it from such a young age. Here in this clip you see a group of girls who are freshly beginning to sell their new record album. The part that is not shown in the clip is the way in which their agent gets them to the top of the box office by putting subliminal messages into the music. That is what originally gets the teenagers in the movie obsessed with these three girls.

The funny thing is, the subliminal element added to the story is to create a villain and a climax to the movie. In real life there is no need for subliminal messages. People still go crazy for the new pop artist, like they did back in the day when "A Hard Day's Night" was produced.
Women still act all crazy when a singer they connect with comes on stage. You see teenagers line up to see concerts and movie theaters just to see their fantasies come alive in a pop artist or actor. People still buy t-shirts, cd's, sweaters, and posters.

The younger kids get, the easier it is to sell and globalize a popular comodity.

Who wouldn't want Hannah Montana as a true friend! I'd BUY it.

"The cultural homegenization theseis proposes that the globalization of consumer capitalism involves a loss of cultural diversity. It stresses the growth of 'sameness' and a presumed loss of cultural autonomy" (Barker 159). How are kids supposed to form their own identities if they are busy mimicking their pop idols? With capitalism playing a huge role in governing our lives, pretty soon we will all resemble robots, creating franchises of HUMANS!





Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications, 2008.Print.







Monday, October 18, 2010

Is Sexuality Still Censored today?


The idea of sex is always changing. We can say there is a radical as well as conservative view of sex. We, as a society, define what we deem as radical or conservative. There is a growing discourse of sexuality since the 18th century. This discourse maintains order. Before, when sex was not transformed into a discourse, Michel Foucault would say there was the "forbidding of certain words" (1504). People were afraid to talk about sex or anything related to intimacy. The discourse now defines people by disciplining us. Foucault believes that there should no longer be a top/down relationship between people. Higher institutions should not govern sex. It should be a horizontal relationship within all people. This horizontal relationship allows each individual to regulate themselves and others. We monitor each-other and we internalize what's right and wrong.

So is sexuality censored today? The discourse of sex is not censored to PUBLIC, but each individual filters sex differently.

Depending on where you go and who you talk to their answers might differ. Answers differ from household to household, person to person, city to city, country to country, town to town, mother to daughter. Because we are subjects of an ever-changing society, with limitless technology and means of communication, everyone is susceptible to hearing the new hetero- normative variations of sex as well as the non-normative variations. Eventually those who did not belong in the norm find an acceptance over time and a new "category" of people who do not belong to the norm are created. I think it's a process of addition and substitution. There are always new variables being added, multiplied, subtracted and divided.

Foucault, Michel. The Norton ANthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York, NY, 2010. 1502-1521. Print.


Thursday, October 14, 2010

Fear, Consumption, Exploitation

Tara Ekmekci

Prof. Wexler

English 313

13 October 2010

Fear, Consumption, Exploitation

Language is the only way to communicate with one’s self and with other selfs. Without language there would be no understanding of the self. The postmodern self is a fragmented self. The person one thinks they are is an assembly of so many small fragments, pieced together to create a whole. Not only is the self created, it is "rearrang[ed], transform[ed] and correct[ed]" (Bordo 1099). With all the technology available to us today, god— as the creator— has been replaced by surgeons. This postmodern rhetoric of choice and technology has allowed people (mostly women) to constantly find a reason to be dissatisfied with their bodies. This dissatisfaction leads to the postmodern plastic discourse. In this discourse, "all sense of history and all ability (or inclination) to sustain cultural criticism, to make the distinctions and discriminations which would permit such criticism, have disappeared" (Bordo 1104). This means that because the post-modern self is relative, no one passes judgment anymore. There is this "you do what you want and I'll do what I want" attitude in the air. This discourse no longer allows there to be an underlying truth.

Because of this, there is a postmodern angst developing. These non-judgmental people seem respectful towards the actions, comments and opinions of individual others, but under that veil there are true bottled up opinions. "Television is of course, the great teacher here, our prime modeler of plastic pluralism" (Bordo 1104). Instead of judging each other or setting limits for the post-modern self, society finds the television to be a better role model. As long as someone on TV says it looks beautiful, or it'll make everything look and feel okay, then society feels that it is worthy of being mimicked. Technology has taken away the role of human contact and communication. The post-modern self has created a dialogic relationship with the Television, rather than with humans. With this said, how are relationships between male and female supposed to arise in this world lacking true communication? Is love based off traditional concepts anymore? Is there a decline in marriage? Has it become yet another institution governing the lives of many? In the 21st century, where identity is constantly produced and reproduced, this fragmented idea of love and relationships has been constructed by the core of postmodern culture, television

In Elizabeth Gilbert’s, Eat Prey Love, Elizabeth is on a radical quest to find her true self. Elizabeth is unsatisfied with cultural norms. She is tired of her traditional path to marriage and creating a family. Elizabeth has come to a point in her life where a home, car, job and an outgrown soul-mate no longer suffice. The agony of living in this "in-between", where she's neither happy or sad is far more painful than the thought of breaking both her and her husband's heart. Elizabeth finalizes the divorce and soon after is on a journey to find her true identity.

This film is comprised of bits and pieces of the radical, sex and romantic comedy. This is the story of "girl divorces husband, girl finds a younger man, girl is not satisfied with younger man, girl tries to find herself, girl meets man again, girl and man fall in love." The reason why this film does not follow the typical arc of the romantic comedy, because "a romantic comedy is a film which has as its central narrative motor a quest for love, which portrays this quest in a light hearted way and almost always to a successful conclusion." This story is not about the quest for love. It’s about the quest for spiritual love, faith, courage and happiness. It does not start out with a girl meeting a boy element, it begins with a divorce.

Eat Pray love is a twisted version of a traditional romantic comedy, but there are so many sub-genres weaved into it that interrupt the linear play of the usual romantic comedy arc. After Elizabeth’s divorce, she finds a rebound partner. She is satisfied with his youth and free spirit, as well as their sexual connection. Although she abolishes the idea of marriage and the opposing idea of having no strings attached, Elizabeth is still unhappy. She realizes that finding another man is not going to be the solution to the void she is constantly experiencing. She still has no idea of what it is that will fulfill her true self.

Once Elizabeth realizes her relationship with the younger man needs to end, she decides to take a year long trip to Italy, India and Bali. The film and Elizabeth are on this profound non-conservative journey of finding one’s true self through exploration. Now is it a postmodern characteristic for a woman to leave a traditional marriage in order to find her self? In today’s society, it is a rightful choice to be able to divorce and change one’s life. Even though there are people who disagree with one’s choice of divorce and taking off to different countries, no one is really able to force their opinion on each other. Elizabeth is free to make her own decisions without worrying about their repercussions. She is unhappy and she has one life to live right? There isn’t one truth when it comes to the happiness of an individual. Two people could have different conceptions on the idea of happiness and marriage. There are multiple truths available in a postmodern world. The sky is the limit and Elizabeth can build her identity whenever she pleases. What are the implications of this radial romantic film on its viewers?

Work Cited

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications, 2008.Print.

Bordo, Susan. "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture."Print.

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. London: Wallflower Press, 2007. Print.

Monday, October 4, 2010

Married Women, I am Not Married, but Listen!

There's something called the institution of marriage. Now like I stated in my previous blog, men and women join in holy matrimony (when the time is "right") and begin a new period of their lives together. Two people begin by sharing their hearts, and continue their entire lives sharing their thoughts, their bodies, children, a home, and etc. Not all people believe in this institution, just like not all people believe in the institution of religion, politics or school. Everyone is entitled to their own principles, but I'm personally fueling this essay off the idea that the majority of people get married and later form a family by producing children.

Now whether you start having sex before or after marriage is irrelevant. The relevancy is found in the amount of years you have sex with your partner. (Keep in mind I am playing devil's advocate.) Your first ten years both of you are blooming. New flowers are blossoming, the soil you're running on is still fertile and fresh. There are no arid spaces. As the kids begin to grow older, parenthood enters a tedious routine that might (or might not) begin interfering with yours and your husband's sex life. (Again I am discussing a worst case scenario.) What to do?

Before I try and act like the marriage therapist that I'm not, let me further discuss the role of the male in this midlife crisis. Us women- believing we are the center of our husband's lives-probably don't understand why and how our husbands can undergo such a crisis. The truth is, men begin to realize that they have lost their masculinity. They have become family man. They look around and see butterflies flying over couples with brawny boyfriends flirting with their slender girlfriends. The husband looks down and realizes he is holding his sons hand and a McDonald Happy Meal. He thinks, "Where did life take me? How fast did my good years pass? What happened to my six pack?" They start thinking and over analyzing like women and enter their mid life crisis. What each man experiments with/whom in their crisis might be different. Some men might not even enter this stage, but the point of the stage is to prove to themselves that they are still capable of doing everything they did when they were younger. This trailer is what they try to prove to themselves they can still obtain.


Women, we have so many things to worry about that we might not even realize our husbands are in such a stage. I am not married, nor do I have children, but the best twenty one year old advice I can give you is to first look inward. Have you neglected your husband? Have you been a btich? Is there a reason things have changed and have you discussed concerns (if any) with your partner? There is no need to do things or feel things behind each-other's backs. An open relationship is a healthy one. There is no need to fear the other's response, because chances are you two are not the only ones who feel this way. You should remember the laughs, smiles, and reason why you got married in the first place and find the strength to sort things out. True love conquers all!

Monday, September 27, 2010

Comedy, Sex, Tragedy, Sex, Sex, Sex...Love?

While watching "The Graduate," I remember jotting down a few lines and one of them was when Mrs. Robinson manipulates Ben into having sex with her by calling him "inadequate."
Men do not want their masculinity to be challenged. They do not want women to take away their whole aura of creation. A man's wholeness ( at least in sex comedies) is based on his masculine ability to be a king in bed!

Tamar Jeffer McDonald writes, "The sex comedy pits woman against man in an elemental battle of wits, in which the goal of both is sex. Only the timing and legitimacy of this differs from gender to gender, with women wanting sex after, and men before or without, marriage" ( McDonald 38). I mean this might be comical when reading about or watching in a movie theatre, and we might all consider it to be predictable and cheesy, but isn't our real life based on this sex comedy genre? I mean most of you might be nodding right now. Women, from all your personal experiences along with those of your friends, doesn't the sex comedy contain characteristics similar to real life relationships? A woman dates a man. Man thinks woman is good looking. Woman digs the man. Man wants to hit a home run. Woman feels offended. Woman is horny. Woman needs to be pure. Man needs sex. Woman moves on. Man decides to settle, because it is "time."

Women dream about the idea of finding their one true love. Men come to terms with themselves and realize that if they don't hold on to one of those pretty girls that is really interested in him, he might be getting too old to play the field. Both men and women are constructed- by family and society- to grow up, be polite, find a job, look approachable, fall in love and produce offspring. Along this set of steps, men might only unconciously desire one of the above, and that is to have a child as well. I strongly believe that all men want to create something from their genes. The single difference amongst the only similarity between men and women is that women mature faster than men, therefore as women are ready for sex and children at a younger age, men are only ready for sex!


McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. London: Wallflower Press, 2007. Print.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Cat On A Hot Tin Roof Group Presentation

We were thinking of how to present our project without going into details about each character. The obvious was presented in the text and we tried to demonstrate the hidden emotions and predicaments between characters. Stephanie came up with the idea of Jerry Springer and we took it from there. We brainstormed a few catchy phrases as well as a few dilemmas that would lead to the audience's engagement in our topic.

I was the host and I began by asking Brick about his alcoholism and the death of his friend, Skipper. Than I invited Maggie to further clarify Brick's emotional state and her role as his wife. As Big Daddy, Big Mama, and Mae walked in there were a ramble of truths being thrown out for the crowd to take in.

The feedback we got from the classroom was great. They were responsive to our dialogue. I also believe we all fed off of each-other's enthusiasm in acting. Everyone brought out the best of their character. Overall the presentation and group effort prior to our presentation was smooth and insightful. I definitely think we would be a great cast for a theatre production! I enjoyed working with you all!

Monday, September 20, 2010

Ethnography:

Preface: A wedding I participated in. The newly weds were friends of my boyfriend's family. The people I'm observing are strangers.
Culture: Persian
Place: Roosevelt Hotel
Time: 10:00 PM

She is wearing a gorgeous blue dress. He is wearing a blue tie to match her dress. She led the way and picked up their table number. She had a ring on her finger. She is at a wedding with her fiancee'. He didn't seem too happy to be at this wedding, but he didn't seem angry either. They both sat at their table, right next to mine. They smiled at me and I waved back. She asked him to take pictures and he complied. She checked the mirror once, fixed her hair, put on lip stick and posed for the camera. He waited, not saying a word. She stood and he flashed one shot. She asked for another. He took another picture. This time she wanted him to be in the picture as well. She asked her sister to take the picture. Her sister took a picture of her and her fiancee'. He smiled, but just for the camera.

They sat back down. They were involved in a regular conversation, nothing that demonstrated huge facial expressions. She seemed happy to be at a wedding, although he was nonchalant. They ate their first entree, salad. No one talked. They has their second entree, crab cakes. No one talked. Finally the steak arrived. They both looked at their meat and cut their first piece. She looked at her fiancee' and asked if he was satisfied with his well done piece. Hers was medium rare and she offered to trade it if that would please him. He took her up on her offer and enjoyed the idea of eating a medium-rare juicy steak.

They both cleaned up their plates, and it was ready to dance. The music began to pick up its pace and she asked him to dance. He was very compliant. He got up and followed her to the dance floor. They danced to a few upbeat songs then ended with a slow dance. He gave her the look that signified he was done dancing. He went to sit down next to her sister as she kept dancing with the other girls on the dance floor. She beckoned him from the dance floor to come back, and he just shook his head and blew her a kiss. She continued dancing and they were apart for about fifteen minutes. He watched her while she danced in a crowd. She was getting along with everyone until she decided to walk back to her fiancee. They both went outside for a little air. They came in five minutes after, put their coats on and said goodbye to everyone. It was only 12:00, but they left arm in arm hugging.

A man follows the cultural norm by placing a ring on a woman's finger. By the looks of her actions, she is also following a norm by willing to tender to her fiancee's needs. She portrays this by putting her preference secondary to his needs, and willing to offer her steak to him in order to please him. I find this act to be a part of a woman's intuition, but Simone de Beauvoir would say that "Man can think of himself without woman. She can not think of herself without man" (Beauvoir 4). Beauvoir would tell her to keep her steak instead of making him feel like the essential, the "Absolute."

Furthermore, on the radical side, the man trusts his wife enough to let her dance with a large crowd. In the middle eastern tradition, this dancing is considered radical, because women are restricted from many things. Of course, the term radical changes when used in different context. As Derrida says, the signifier and signified are arbitrary and "meaning can never be fixed" (Barker 18). The context changes between different people or cultures around the world. The idea of allowing a woman to freely dance might be radical in one culture, but completely normative in another.

Capitalism plays a great role in the relationship between this engaged couple. Here we have two couples, introduced by the very clothing they are wearing. Her hair is done by a hair dresser, her make-up by a make-up artist, her ring purchased from a jeweler, and so on and so forth. Are they really in love? Do they have anything to talk about other then the steak? The only time there was real interaction was when they were dancing. Other then that there's even an artificiality in the idea of taking pictures to capture a moment in time that was neither filled with sincere laughter, nor complete pleasure. Their appearance-artificially created by material- produces this happy image that outsiders view.

In addition, the "happy couple" facade is an example of identity constantly changing. Barker writes, "We live our lives in the context of social relationships with others" (Barker 218). The man does not look like he wants to be at the wedding. She needs to put on a pretty face for the both of them. There are different roles being played: the happy couple, the fun couple, the humble wife, the permissive husband, and the dancing pair. Everyone at a wedding constructs a self that will be accepted and acknowledged by the guests around them. Not only does a bride have to look perfect, everyone does. Everyone at a wedding is a composite of many exterior things. Like Michel Foucault's "Panopticon," guests at a wedding know that everyone's eyes are on each other, therefore they all know to be on their best behavior!

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications, 2008.Print.

Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex: Woman as Other. 1949.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

The Fear You Won't Fall


"Part of the beauty of falling in love is the fear you won't fall." Women are not quickly swayed by a man's courtly love anymore. As a matter of fact, does courtly love even exist? What happened to wooing a woman into falling madly in love? I guess this is not medieval times, but something about the idea of courtly romance sounds unfamiliar and inviting.

Today most men and women fear love's ambiguity. Men are more interested in seeming to be single and uninterested than actually committing and admitting to themselves that they love someone. Women, aware of men's unstableness, do not want to allow themselves to fall head over heals with the fear that men will not fall back. I believe this is what causes a division in women who still traditionally choose to rely on a man's love and those who toughen up, take the man's position and are able to make the calls for themselves.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Love is..."wholly cultural? "

The question of identity arises yet again. Do we construct our own identity or are we biologically bestowed with a gift of a truly unique self? Chris Barker writes, "Identity concerns both self-identity and social identity. It is about the personal and the social. It is about the ourselves and our relations with others" (245). I believe that as a toddler we develop a character based on our relations with our parents. Once the school age begins, it is no longer mommy and me for the child, a child is now placed in an unfamiliar environment. He/she needs to adapt to unexplored people and peers. With this sudden unfamiliar placement, a child develops a character that is needed to assimilate in this new social surrounding. Children then incorporate their learned behaviors at home, with their teacher's newly taught principles at school.
This process of identifying one's self in relation to others is a continuous cycle. As children become teens, they begin to question set disciplines at home and in school. Rather than abide to the rules of authority, teenagers begin to find better common ground with friends. As teenagers get nearer to becoming adolescents there is a clearer line between right and wrong. Like Barker states, "we live our lives in the context of social relationships with others" (218). This is how we grow and develop. We absorb everything we learn from our parents, teachers and peers.
The same way we learn about life through a process of identifying ourselves with others, we learn about love. We learn how to love a significant other due to our past experiences with love. We grow to love our parents, our friends, our relatives, siblings, pets, etc. Similarly, we love others the way we have been accustomed to being loved. Is love "wholly cultural?" I believe we construct our idea of what love is is based on culture. Culture includes pop culture, foreign cultures, the culture your parents, friends and instructors construct.
Between the age of 1 to 9, love is our parents; the love we see our parents share with one another and the love they feel towards us. Between the ages of 10 to 14, love is our friends. We love our friends an their acceptance of us is highly important. Between the ages of 15 and 20 we have found our one true love. He is "Mr. Right" and no one can come between this "undying love." As we get older, the idea of love turns from "my heart just skipped two beats," to " he makes me feel safe and truly appreciated."
Love is a part of our identity. The truth is, if one's identity becomes accustomed to new ideas and changing cultures, their previously constructed idea of love might change too. Love and identity go hand in hand. Both are infinite and unstable. There is no use in trying to figure it out. There is more use in aiming to be the best you can be... being true to yourself and others.
If it is true to you, it will be true to those around you. -T.K.E


Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications, 2008.

Monday, August 30, 2010

"The Radical Romance"

What is Love?

In my opinion...

Love is an unexplainable emotion. When feelings are so heightened, lovers feel obligated to name it something other than "like." One feels ready to name it "love" and take that leap of faith into the Odyssey, without knowing the ending to his/her journey. Will they have a tragic or fairytale ending?
Love is easily formed and easily broken. Unfortunately, the infatuation at the base of love quickly dies. What lasts is a mutual understanding and respect two lovers establish with one another after the initial utopian stages are over.


We all want to be loved. How can we be sure who the right one is?

-T. K.E.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

We are all "Helga Cranes"

Tara Ekmekci

Prof. Wexler

English 436

14 August 2010

We are all "Helga Cranes"

Everyone compared to a specific Subject is considered to be the “other subject”. The Subject can be one person, a group of people, or a whole race. The Subject compares itself to the “other subject” who can also be a person, group, or race. In this essay the dominant Subjects are the Western hegemonic ideals, the majority who follow these ideals and the imperialized English speaking culture. The “other subjects” are the minority, the oppressed, the subjugated, the marginalized, and silenced voices who are “… a class of colonial subjects often burdened by a double consciousness and by divided loyalties” (Leitch 28). The minority ethnic groups in North America include Africans, Asians, Native people, Hispanics and Middle Easterners. Each possesses their separate values, cultures, customs, habits, and languages. As major changes begin to take place in 20th century United States, many minority groups are still unable to break through the stereotypes that type-cast their roles in society.

One such type-casted group in American society are the African Americans. During the Harlem Renaissance there were competing notions of black identity. The New Negro concept at the heart of this movement is the key to reading Nella Larsen’s, “Quicksand.” Larsen has a more complicated picture of the New Negro. The protagonist in the story, Helga Crane, is constantly fleeing from restrictive notions of identity in a time when all African Americans unconsciously “… participate[d] in the process of carrying the traumatic past forward into the future…” (Stringer 3). Are the identifications of the Old Negro—before the Reconstruction — completely buried six feet under? The New Negro, epitomized by the protagonist, Helga Crane, in Larsen’s “Quicksand,” is struggling, but unable to identify herself with Alain Locke’s new modernized, self-dependent African American self.

Following the end of the reconstruction African Americans were magnetically pulled toward the Northern urban areas due to an increase in work production. After United States entered World War I in 1917, there were industrial vacancies on account of white soldiers who had gone to fight the war. African Americans started to fill these vacancies as they began migrating North to New York City, specifically Harlem. There was a new generation of African Americans who were a product of the great migration and civil war period. There was the belief that the New Negro would emerge when slavery was abolished. The New Negro represented a triumph of ideals and new identity that were in the making a hundred years before.

Helga Crane is the “product” of an African American father and white mother. Immediately this is crucial in understanding her ambiguity towards belonging to both colored spectrums of the American race. Nella Larsen begins “Quicksand” with the protagonist, Helga Crane, sitting in her room in Naxos. Helga is a teacher in Naxos “… at the finest school for Negroes anywhere in the country, north or south…”(Larsen 1087). She is in her room because she refuses to attend work. Helga dislikes her work environment, because she doesn’t accept complying to an unreciprocated relationship with an educational institution that gives nothing in return. She feels like an insignificant part in a factory, producing Naxos products¾the products being African American students abiding to white hegemonic ideals. Booker T. Washington created this school for all African Americans to gain education, but the only thing Helga sees are white views imposed upon them all. She dislikes feeling implicated in a system breeding and producing inequality. Larsen describes Helga’s sensitivities toward Naxos by writing, “The South. Naxos. Negro education. Suddenly she hated them all. Strange, too, for this was the thing which she had ardently desired to share in, to be part of this monument to one man’s genius and vision.” (Larsen 1088) She does not find satisfaction in Naxos any more. She is ready to hastily leave it all behind, and begin a new hopeful journey of identifying with less conformed surroundings.

Nella Larsen immediately depicts an African American woman who is unhappy with the environment she is living in. While the concept of freedom was still expanding, attending a university, or holding a teacher’s position was an extreme luxury for African Americans in the 1920s. It is interesting to understand the reasons behind Nella Larsen’s motifs of creating a character like Helga Crane. Helga’s identity is complicated. In the first three pages, she refuses to identify herself with the people of Naxos, because “This great community, she thought, was no longer a school. It had grown into a machine” (Larsen 1089). It is evident that Helga holds strong feelings apropos denying individualism and new innovations.

Alain Locke was a very influential writer during the Harlem Renaissance. He wrote “The New Negro,” describing what he thought would be the new spirit among black Americans. Helga Crane, is one of the many ignored voices that Alain Locke leaves out while talking about a developing definition of the African American race. For Locke, the Old Negro is humble, submissive, and self-deprecating. He defines the New Negro as an African American who has a sense of self-respect, self-reliance, independence and Americanism. Locke says, “…the Old Negro had long become more of a myth than a man. The Old Negro, we must remember, was a creature of moral debate and historical controversy” (Locke 984). Helga Crane is still a “creature of moral debate and historical controversy.” (Locke 984). Helga flees from Naxos¾an institution which produces and feeds New Negroes¾because she rejects conforming to the New Negro ideals. In her eyes, the larger implications the authorities running Naxos have is to produce Naxos products still confined to belong to the hierarchy of color.

Alain Locke would have a hard time understanding the complex psyche behind Helga Crane’s constant dissatisfaction in her environment. Locke believes that by determination African Americans as a nationalistic race can come together and leave behind the repressed oppressions of the past. Even though Helga is determined to identify with certain groups, she is unable to define herself with the Old Negro or New Negro characteristics. She rejects the New Negro development in Naxos, and ends up in Harlem. Harlem is also the focal point of development for the New Negro concept. Helga arrives in Harlem searching for her mother’s brother, Uncle Peter. Her uncle’s new wife opens the door to their home, and tells Helga that she is not welcome in their house. Larsen writes that “[Helga] saw herself for an obscene sore in all their lives, at all costs to be hidden” (Larsen 1103). Helga had confidence in her uncle, and now he was just another individual who she was unable to form a relationship with. She was neither fully black, nor fully white, but her skin color automatically determined the perception that every white American had of her. Helga Crane had the hue of an African American, but knew that “She didn’t, in spite of her racial markings, belong to these dark segregated people” (Larsen 1119). She knew she had to leave Harlem to a place where her color played no role in her social casting.

Helga is only able to find contentment in isolation, because she is unable to get “… past controversy… and settle down to a realistic facing of facts” (Locke 986). Locke also argues that the African American is “taking a flight” from “medieval America to modern” (Locke 986). Helga Crane is fleeing from both worlds. Locke cannot universalize the experience of all African Americans to his concept of the New Negro. Helga does not perfectly fit into Locke’s description, because her psychology is too complex. Helga decides to leave Harlem to live with her Aunt Katrina in Denmark, Copenhagen.

Helga is on a quest of leaving behind yet another society she is unable to belong too. Her optimism and faith in assimilating to this new land, Copenhagen, has summited as Larsen emphasizes that “[Helga] liked it, this new life. For a time it blotted from her mind all else” (Larsen 1126). She finally receives the attention she is craving in Copenhagen, but instead of being objectified as a worker, like in Harlem and Naxos, she is objectified as merely an icon of beauty. One of the first things Helga’s aunt tells her is that, “You must have bright things to set off the color of your lovely brown skin. Striking things, exotic things. You must make an impression” (Larsen 1126) For the first time in her life she no longer had to be the one looking after her personal interests. Her Aunt Katrina took it upon herself to tend to Helga’s needs. This was new to Helga. It seemed ideal at first, but sooner or later she begins to realize that in “[Copenhagen] she was, a curiosity, a stunt, at which people came and gazed” (Larsen 1129). Helga Crane is unable to identify herself as an adorned decoration. Her life in Copenhagen meant little to her after two years of serving only one purpose¾a perfect image to be sold to the highest bidder.

Helga’s struggles with identity are more complicated than the notions of W.E.B. Dubois’s double consciousness, because Helga does not only define herself through her eyes, and eyes of white Americans. She tries seeing herself through the eyes of African Americans in Harlem, African Americans in Naxos, the society in Copenhagen, Anne, Aunt Katrina, and all her possible lovers. Larsen reminds us that “She could neither conform, nor be happy in her unconformity” (Larsen 1091). She suffers from competing notions of black identity deeper than double consciousness. When she looks in the mirror, there’s a reflection of the New Negro appearance she tries conforming to, but she constantly sees herself craving for the Old Negro traditions. Each time she rejects submission, she yearns for tradition and each time she rejects tradition she temporarily accepts conforming to the new territory she is in. As time passes, Helga does not “… see the repudiation of social dependence, and then the gradual recovery of hyper-sensitiveness and ‘touchy nerves’…and finally the rise from social disillusionment to race pride…” (Locke 989). Helga is not a product of the New Negro individual who is able to achieve complete independence from notions of African American consciousness, through self-determination. She did not have Locke’s view of the African Americans thriving during the Harlem Renaissance in America. Helga vocalizes her resentment for America by emphasizing, “Go back to America, where they hated Negroes! To America, where Negroes were not people. To America, where Negroes were allowed to be beggars only, of life, of happiness, of security” (Larsen 1135).

Before leaving Copenhagen for America, Helga refuses Axel Olsen’s hand for marriage. He hands her a gift, a self-portrait of Helga. She automatically denies any form of resemblance with the portrait. The picture symbolizes a sensual depiction of Helga. She calls it a “tragedy” foreshadowing the fate she put out for herself ever since the beginning of the story. Dorothy stringer writes how, “Helga describes the resemblance, not in terms of greater or lesser artistic skill… It was not, she says, ‘herself’; she is disappointed and contemptuous because the painting is not ‘herself’…reveals that Helga’s only desire is for ‘herself’” (Stringer 76). She could not see herself in the painting, because she did not have a grasp of her own perception of herself. Helga has the tendency of rejecting everything old and new, therefore she will certainly deny this sensual depiction of herself.

After rejecting Copenhagen, Helga has no choice but to return to America for the second time. In America, Helga chooses to take a different route, and marries Reverend Mr. Pleasant Green. She moves to the cores of the South, and after a few years of working on a farm and producing five children, she once again resents her life of labor and religion. Larsen states that “From the prejudiced restrictions of the New World to the easy formality of the Old, from the pale calm of Copenhagen to the colorful lure of Harlem” (Larsen 1144). Helga is not able to find cheerfulness. Through failed experiences of molding into the New Negro, her final choice is to move South, a place which represents all the Old Negro depictions, and none of the New Negro ideals. The only thing Helga achieves through her indecisive actions is moving backwards. She was not content with having the best of both worlds, therefore she is now stuck in the antiquated word in the South.

While trying to construct her own definition of the New Negro individual, she finds herself striving for an unattainable black and white ideal self that she cannot fulfill. Stringer writes “[Helga] isn’t there; you cant see her. She is the only one to see herself…” (Stringer 76). Her identifications with the Old Negro attributes were never buried. Her insecurities about being both black and white seizes her from moving forward and allowing herself to move with the flow of society.

Helga tries to be a feminist, a Marxist and a perfect example of an African American unable to naturally adapt to white values, completely reject them, or even blend into them. Simone de Beauvoir, a French 20th century feminist emphasized the lack of effort put by women as whole to stray away from the title of the “other.” For Beauvoir, women are constantly looked as the “other,” next to men. Men are the “absolute,” the “supreme” and Beauvoir aimed to eliminate the unequal relationship between men and women.

In Nella Larsen’s, Quicksand, Helga is a tragic character who belongs to the African American race that was used, tortured, and reduced to mere commodity. On top of coping with repressed scars from the past, she is also an example of a woman unable to find herself in a male dominated Western society. Beauvoir would definitely be proud of Helga’s choice of leaving Copenhagen, a place that expected her to play that role of a desirable woman waiting for a man to make her his ornament. The idea of wearing the best dresses and owning the most expensive accessories falls under the implications of capitalism and the ways in which owning the grandest and greatest of products can make you presentable for the male species who will carefully choose purchase and own you as well!

In her travels to Copenhagen she rejected to mold into societies pressure of the perfect adorable housewife, but somewhere along the way Helga was not able to stand her own ground. She fell apart and resorted to needing a male to be the steady rock in her life. When she chose to marry the Reverend and move South, she took the role of the housewife she rejected to be a part of in Copenhagen. Her inferiority complex definitely took over and she placed herself in a life she never dreamt of.

Gloria Anzaldua, a Mexican American writer, writes about the differences of multicultural identity portraying the “Helga Cranes” still eminent in the modern world today. She writes to reach out to the suppressed Spanish voices in America, but her writing echoes all the voices of marginalized ethnic groups. Anzaldua says “culture’ is a ‘story to explain the world and our participation in it, a … value system with images and symbols to connect us to each other and to the planets” (Anzaldua 2096). In a world where “the dominant white culture is killing us slowly with its ignorance” (Anzaldua 2097), hyphenated Americans should begin by wanting to preserve their own culture and then working to remind all “Helga Cranes” that with unity and compliance hybrid identities can coexist in a dominating white society.

Work Cited

Anzaldua, Gloria. “From Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Leitch, Vincent B. 2nd ed. New York: NY, 2010. 2095- 2109. Print.

Larsen, Nella. “Quicksand.” Norton Anthology of African American Literature. Ed. Gates, Henry L., and Nellie Y. McKay. 2nd ed. New York: NY, 2004. 1086-1167. Print.

Leitch, Vincent B. “Introduction to Theory and Criticism.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and

Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: NY, 2010. 27-29. Print.

Locke, Alain. “The New Negro.” Norton Anthology of African American Literature. Ed.Gates, Henry L., and Nellie Y. McKay. 2nd ed. New York: NY, 2004. 984-993. Print.

Stringer, Dorothy. “Not Even Past”: Race, Historical Trauma, and Subjectivity in

Faulkner, Larsen, and Van Vechten. New York: Fordham, 2010.3-87. Print.