The Second Sex and Ms. Turkey

                Beauvoir asserts that women, like minorities, are given another label or separate identity that is abstract rather than concrete.  The concrete would be our existence as human beings and the abstract would be labels such as Jew, Muslim, etc.  Women, and the submissive nature of their gender roles indicate that they too exist as both a concrete human and an abstract idea of what a stereotypical woman is.  She takes it further by then asserting that men only see women for sex, as “the sex” because men can think of himself without women in his life and women always think they need to be co-dependent on men. She feels that men are the One and women are the Other, that women are submissive and compliant enough to accept their role as the Other in society. 

This theory does seem relevant in everyday society when we’re faced with millions of advertisements everyday depicting women as sex objects, women as the Other.  Victoria Secret posters, Ms. Turkey and other women in Carl’s Jr. commercials, Sports car ads, cheerleaders, etc.  These are all popular and widely perpetuated images of women that parallel Beauvoir’s points.  Another point she makes that remains culturally relevant is that unlike minorities who suffer from being Othered, women do not have the same solidarity between them that makes them rise up and fight for better treatment.  Blacks for example have always been treated like dirt in America but eventually they began to make positive changes for themselves in society through organized movements such as the Civil Rights Movement, Freedom Riders, Black Panther Party, etc.  Women lack the same solidarity because there is a difficulty in organizing half the populace of the planet.  Ultimately, women are caught between being objectified and subordinated to men as merely sex objects and at the same time they are unable to live without men meaning she cannot simply withdraw from society or cast men aside. 

Analysis 5: Foucault and the Snitch

Retrospective on snitching:




Riley's refusal to snitch during interrogation:

An episode from The Boondocks entitled “Thank You For Not Snitching” is heavily rooted in the ideals of panopticism as it highlights snitching in relation to the black community as an unwritten taboo.  The episode begins with a mystery in the neighborhood pertaining to the identity of the thief that successfully burglarized three houses with the same week.  Robert Freeman vehemently refuses to talk to the police whereas his mostly white neighbors, who are all in the neighborhood watch as well, are eager to cooperate with the cops.  Panopticism is presented in two different ways: one where the blacks feel the unseen pressure of the stigma against snitching and another where the members of the neighborhood watch want to make the criminal(s) feel their presence as they actively keep an eye out for their whereabouts –there motto being “neighbors watching neighbors.”  A common trait between the characteristically black stigma against snitching and the existence of the neighborhood watch is that both their functions rely upon internalized pressures.  Just as the Freeman’s are not aware of black people potentially witnessing their snitching, the burglars are unaware of whether or not someone in the neighborhood is actually watching and calling the police on them.  Deterrents against unwanted actions, in this case snitching and home invasion, are primarily unseen forces that rely upon the Foucaultian notion that imperceptibility of authority becomes self-discipline.

 Riley discovers that his friends Ed and Rummy were the burglars as they run from a neighborhood watch member with a shotgun, resulting in the duo speeding off in Robert Freeman’s most precious possession, his car Dorothy, in the getaway unbeknownst to him or Huey.  Riley vehemently refuses to cooperate with his family or the police pertaining to finding possible suspects regarding the theft of his grandfather’s car.  In response to his livid grandfather grilling him for details, Riley reflects his panoptic self-discipline through responses such as “what would my niggas think of me if I snitched.”  Riley experiences anxiety about losing the respect and street-credibility from a presence, other black people, that may or may not be there to see him snitch. 

          Bentham came up with the imprisonment concept of the Panopticon which has guards in the center of a circle of prisoners that are all kept in one prisoner per cell.  The central idea behind this structure is that every prisoner is capable of being watched at any given time but is unable to perceive or relay to each other if they are being watched and when.  Prisoners are left in the dark and just assume that because they can be watched then they act as if they are which allows for the prisoners to behave without needing the presence of many guards.  They are discipline themselves simply because of the possibility of being watched and it is this whole idea that Michel Foucault took and applied to our own behavior.  He dug beyond the surface explanation of people behaving because they are being watched and asserted that even though they may or may not be watched, the possibility of being watched results in our own internalization of social pressures that we voluntarily abide by.  Just as prisoners in the Panopticon, we discipline ourselves.  Personally I’ve never thought had this take on how social pressures work but off of the top of my head here are quick everyday examples that are common:

·         * Taking a quick look around to see if there’s anybody around to see you litter.  Even if you don’t see anyone you may still decide not to litter.

·         *Deciding whether or not to tell a dirty/sexist/racist joke in a public place.  Even if you do decide to tell a joke you may do it in a hushed tone or not tell it at all.

·        * Cleaning up after your dog with the pooper scooper during a walk despite the temptation to continue walking without having to deal with handling excrement.

Many common everyday dilemmas that we deal with can be easily explained panoptically.  We internalized right and wrong and we don’t want anyone to see us do wrong so our temptations to break social rules compete against the panoptic social eye of anyone who may or may not be watching.