Thursday, October 10, 2013

Covered: A Sociological Film About Tattoos

I show the film Covered in my Introduction to Sociology course. The filmmaker is Beverly Yuen Thompson, a sociologist at Siena College. The film is 58 minutes. I show approximately 35 minutes of the film and use the remainder of class time for discussion. I've shown it to three different classes and what stands out is the variety of reactions I get from students. I had the mistaken assumption that the current generation of college students would be "all in" about tattoos. I figured they would think tattoos are cool, period. In reality, students have mixed reactions in talking about tattoos. Keep in mind the film focuses on women who have a lot of tattoos (you perhaps gathered that from the movie title. It's called Covered, not Little Tattoos You Won't Even Notice).

I highly recommend showing this film to students. The first part of the film focuses on reactions that women get in public and from family members. One woman in the film talks about the frustration of being stopped by strangers who ask about her tattoos: "I'm not a mannequin that you can just come up and look at the merchandise," she says. Another participant in the film used the phrase "tattoo etiquette" in saying that the public hasn't yet figured out how to respond to people with a lot of tattoos.

A really interesting part of the film shows disapproval from family members. There's a great scene featuring the filmmaker with her mother. One of the tattoos Thompson has is of her father, who doesn't know she has tattoos. "If he found out," her mother says, "he'd probably have a heart attack." In an interview of another mother and daughter, the daughter says she wants to get a tattoo of her mother. The mother replies: "No...It's no good for me.....Do it when I die."

Another excellent section of the film focuses on the experiences of women as tattoo artists. They talk about breaking into what has traditionally been a male industry. One tattooist talks about not always being taken seriously when customers walk through the door. She says: "Even today, after almost thirty years, sometimes I'll be tattooing a man, and people will walk in, and they'll ask the man the question." Another tattooist mentions that she is asked "Do you tattoo guys?" She laughs and wonders if people ever ask male artists if they tattoo women. On the other hand, artists talk about the positive response they get as tattooists. One says that women are more comfortable getting tattooed by women (especially in a "risque" area of their body). Another artist notes there are "possessive husbands or boyfriends that won't let a man touch their girlfriends or wives." An artist suggests that the stigma around women tattooists has lessened since she began her career. So the industry landscape has changed and continues to change.

When I ask students to respond to the film, I hear several different comments, but have observed a few themes. Some students will say they like tattoos if they have meaning.These students dislike "random" tattoos. This usually leads to other students jumping in and saying that all tattoos have meaning, even when the meaning is not obvious and apparent. Other students wonder if it's possible to get a job if they are heavily tattooed. That sentiment leads to good discussion and elicits different perspectives. Students have also talked about disapproval from family members after getting tattoos. Others beam with pride when they talk about their tattoos and the tattoos they would like to get in the future. In all, the film opens the door for students to think about the sociology of tattoos. I love the film and am inspired by the creative approach Thompson takes to doing sociology.



Tuesday, October 8, 2013

America is in a Slump

I am grumpy. I think it has to do with America's celebrities, politicians, and op-ed columnists. I think we need new ones. Give us new celebrities, better politicians, and fresh op-ed columnists. Bring us a new fast-food industry. Gift us with an improved cultural infrastructure. I would probably still be grumpy. But there's caffeine for that. I did shake off my grumpiness for a few minutes today while driving around town in my Hyundai. I spent those few minutes rocking out to Bad Company. This probably does not help my credibility. The end.


P.S. On a more serious note, America is a low-wage society.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Fantasy Football -- The Case of C.J. Spiller

I have never played fantasy football. Everything I know about it is based on what I hear from friends who participate and from listening to sports talk radio. I do watch the NFL--something I feel conflicted about, one reason being the violence and damage that players experience. I am a Buffalo Bills fan. Simply put, I root for the home team. I live ten minutes from Ralph Wilson stadium. I'm in a better mood on Monday when the Bills win on Sunday. That's how it goes for a lot of us in Western New York.

After the Bills earned a surprising victory against the Baltimore Ravens on Sunday (September 29), I listened to some of the post-game chatter on local radio station WGR 550. I heard host Sal Capaccio (@SalSports) draw attention to the insults that fantasy football fans were hurling at Bills running back C.J. Spiller on Twitter. What he said on the radio is similar to what he wrote on Twitter:

On the radio, Capaccio sounded genuinely outraged at what people were tweeting about Spiller. He didn't want to repeat what people were saying on Twitter. He pretty much suggested that listeners see for themselves. In all, Capaccio came off as sincere in condemning people who said hostile things about Spiller. And why were fantasy football fans upset at Spiller? He rushed for 77 yards against the Ravens without scoring a touchdown--not a good day in fantasy football land. From my perspective, Spiller played fine. Aside from regularly playing with injuries, Spiller recently has had to cope with a tragedy involving a family member. With this in mind, I don't think most fans of the Buffalo Bills would be angry with Spiller for "only" rushing for 77 yards. But Fantasy Football fans play by different rules. They apparently get very serious and angry if players on their fantasy teams don't perform in a way that satisfies them.

Out of curiosity, I searched "CJ Spiller fantasy football" and other similar phrases on Twitter and saw a range of reactions to Spiller's performance against the Ravens. I won't embed the negative tweets in this post. You can do the same search if you want to see what people have said (and are still saying) about Spiller. Instead of the actual tweets, here are some examples of what came up in my search:

-"I hate you CJ Spiller."
-"Thanks for nothing CJ Spiller."
-"Do you enjoy being a shitty fantasy football player and tanking your career?"
-"Thank you for getting hurt and being a horseshit fantasy player."
-"Get your shit together, you're killing my fantasy team."
-"You need to get it together and get me more fantasy points bro."
-"CJ Spiller is the absolute worst first round fantasy pick in history. I hope he tears his ACL so I can force myself to bench him."

There are actually ones more hostile than what I've included. I wasn't shocked to find that people write things like this on Twitter. What did surprise me was that many of them were tweeted at C.J. Spiller. Until I searched, I didn't know that people actually say these things directly to the players. I suppose this means that some people feel entitled to say hostile things to players via Twitter.

Also interesting, though, was to see a lot of people tweeting supportive things about Spiller. By comparison, it looks as though there might actually be more people writing positive things about Spiller and directly to Spiller. Here are a few examples of people keeping it positive (and notice that Spiller seems to be taking this in stride and able to put it in perspective):



Football players probably don't get enough credit for how they handle personal attacks. Even accounting for the point that professional football players are public figures, and taking into consideration that being on Twitter makes it possible for fans to communicate with players in a nasty manner, this does not mean that players deserve to be spoken to in such terrible ways. But I am probably just a naive person who thinks that people should be treated with respect and dignity. I suppose that's a fantasy too.


Sunday, September 1, 2013

First TVs, Then Fox News on TV

Increasingly, Fox News seems to be the default station in restaurants and other establishments that I visit. I live in Western New York (also known as the Buffalo-Niagara region), a place that a friend once described as "a red part of a blue state." There obviously was a time when flat screen televisions weren't playing in grocery stores and diners; now it's common for me to see Fox News airing in these and other places.

The experience of being in airports with CNN on every screen is familiar to many. When CNN is on the screen, it's easier for me to grasp. After all, CNN was the first cable news operation, and is still considered by some to be a neutral news source (or at least to provide the appearance thereof). If Fox and MSNBC occupy polar opposites of the cable news spectrum in their overall presentation of politics, CNN exists somewhere in-between, at times closer to MSNBC, other times nearer to Fox.

It's rare for me to see MSNBC airing in local establishments. MSNBC projects something resembling the liberal viewpoint, however 'liberal' is to be understood when presented by a corporate-cable news entertainment operation. MSNBC hosts and pundits don't always flatter President Obama and other Democrats. But the channel tends to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt in its construction of 'progressive' politics and viewpoints. MSNBC, in a 'lean forward' corporate way, sends signals about politics and culture that are qualitatively different than those that come from Fox News.

The most recent instance of seeing Fox News on a screen in public was when I went to a diner with my family. I'd never been to the diner before. We were seated at a booth. Two big TV screens were easy for me to see: a local news station on one and Fox News on the other. A music station was playing, so the TVs were muted. So one screen was Fox News (known for sensational headlines and coverage obviously unflattering to President Obama and anything approximating the liberal cause). The juxtaposition was interesting: local news doing what local news does (crime stories, pet stories, profiles of local businesses, weather forecasts) alongside Fox News (consistent undermining of President Obama and other Democrat politicians).

I'm not sure what place Fox News has in a diner. Or a supermarket. If you're wondering, it's not MSNBC that I want to see on these screens. The torso and head of Chris Hayes or Ed Schultz doesn't naturally fit into a diner or supermarket scheme either. I don't walk into a coffee shop hoping to see Morning Joe on the screen ("brewed by Starbucks"). I don't know any self-described liberal who eagerly anticipates the next opinion from Ed Rendell or Eugene Robinson. Corporate cable news-entertainment from any station at the pub and elsewhere in public feels to me like an intrusion; an unwanted and unnecessary infusion of politics into my everyday life.

All of this to say: It used to be that television screens were reserved for sports bars and airports, now they appear in more and more places where I live, and usually set to Fox News. Why? To what effect?

I hope a few readers will share observations. What is it like in your daily life--TVs set to The Weather Channel, ESPN, local news, or something else? How do you feel about what's on? In terms of the stations that are on, what messages do you think are being sent to patrons?





.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

The Miley Cyrus Performance At The MTV Video Music Awards

Surely you've seen the Miley Cyrus performance at the Video Music Awards by now. My initial reaction was to file it under the pursuit of attention. By that phrase I'm referring to a book by Charles Derber. Derber examines the ways people seek attention in everyday life. Attention is something that can be shared and allocated. While some people are inclined to share or even avoid attention, others compete for attention. It's not only celebrities that crave attention. Derber points to ways 'ordinary' people strive for attention too. But in order to stay relevant, celebrities have to become experts in gaining and maintaining attention.



To an extent, then, this is what celebrities do: they pursue attention. So I mostly looked at Cyrus' performance in the context of celebrity behavior. In the first 'highlights' I saw, parts of Cyrus' performance were shown after clips of Lady Gaga in various costumes. Cyrus and Gaga are both very good at staying relevant and being in the news. Notice they are often trending topics on Twitter. So my first reaction was to view their performances as part of a competition to gather the spotlight.

I still think Cyrus' performance can be partly understood as a major attention grab, but there's much more to it. I think the racial dimension has to be accounted for, something I had not initially considered. It was when I read this piece that I began to grasp how the performance must also be understood in racial terms. And then I read this analysis by Tressie McMillan Cottom. Toward the end of her piece, she writes: "I am not surprised that so many overlooked this particular performance of brown bodies as white amusement parks in Cyrus' performance." It's a really deep analysis that helps me think more critically about the performance. Another important read about Cyrus, written a few months ago by Dodai Stewart, provides context about twerking and discusses how Cyrus, in a video, uses black women "as props, a background for her to shine in front of."

So there's a lot to consider and think through. There are many ways to analyze Cyrus' performance. This article by Emily Heist Moss focuses on gender and power. As I've tried to show by compiling these analyses, the Cyrus performance is not simply a case of 'Hannah Montana' crafting her image and getting attention. This is a complicated story with profound race, gender, and power dimensions.

Elite media figures who have focused their energy on sounding an alarm along the lines of  "Think of the children" (Mika Brzezinski comes to mind) miss bigger picture points identified in the articles to which I've linked.

As a final point, Robin Thicke shouldn't escape criticism. He walked slowly on stage to join Cyrus in the performance. There he was, Mr. Cool in a pinstriped suit, singing and 'dancing' with Cyrus during his sexist song "Blurred Lines." Let's not forget this popular song contains the lyrics "I know you want it." Cyrus stole the show at the Video Music Awards. I think that's why so much criticism (warranted) has been directed at her. Thicke deserves criticism too, for being part of the performance and for bringing even more attention to a degrading song.






Monday, August 19, 2013

Nobody Has Sex (Thinking About Facebook Norms)

I don't have my own Facebook but I am aware of what happens in the network of Tina, my wife. She keeps me in the loop of things that friends and family post on her Facebook. So I see lots of pictures from people we know. Given our stage of life, it's mostly pictures of everyday family life. We see pictures of kids and pets and have a window into where people go out to eat and what they cook at home. There's also some political chatter and quite a bit of social commentary.

What is missing from these Facebook posts? Any talk about sex. It seems, unfortunately, that no one in my wife's social network is having sex. To be more precise, no one ever says anything about sex. One night my wife joked "I'm going to put on Facebook, 'Going to bed, but not going to sleep'" and we cracked up because even the slightest subtle reference to the possibility of engaging in sexual activity would breach Facebook norms (at least in her network).

I will go ahead and guess that talking about sex is not taboo in everybody's social network. Surely there are folks who air out their sexual laundry on Facebook. But for those who belong to a network where the norm is to avoid any reference to sexual activity, it would make for a good breaching experiment to post "I have the best sex life ever" or "Haven't had sex in forever" or really anything that has to do with having sex.

This post is not an awkward invitation to tell your Facebook friends about your sex life. Rather, this topic is a reminder that life is an information game, to paraphrase Erving Goffman from the introduction of The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. We share information about ourselves but not all our information. This is part of the process of face-to-face interaction. It's also the case on Facebook--where we tell people our story but not our full story--a point effectively conveyed here by Nathan Jurgenson.






Friday, August 16, 2013

A Song For Thinking About Robert Merton's "Strain Theory"

I spend some part of every day thinking about Robert Merton's "strain theory." I think a lot about the cultural goals--those "things worth striving for," as Merton described them. What do we aspire to? What do we seek to attain? Those questions never go out of style. They will always be relevant.

One of my favorite songs from the past few years is "Beach Comber" by Real Estate. It's an all around nice tune with lyrics that bring Merton to mind. The first line is a beauty: "What you want is just outside your reach, you keep on searching." There's always a risk to interpreting song lyrics. This song could be about anything--a lost love, for instance--but I'm brought back to the cultural goals with the lines "until you find your Rolex in the sand, you won't be stopping. Until that solid gold is in your hand, you won't be happy." There's a chance I've got the lyrics wrong, too. No matter how many times I listen to the song, I don't always hear each word exactly the same way. But even leaving room for error, the song gives us a chance to think about how we pursue the things we think will make us happy. But as the song suggests, what we think will make us happy isn't necessarily what will make us happy.

As I've written before, when we teach strain theory I think the main objective is to get students to think critically about the disjunction between cultural goals and the approved means for obtaining those goals. I love thinking about the cultural goals and talking with students about what those goals supposedly are. My students give a variety of answers when I ask questions like "How important is making money in this culture?" and "How important is it to you to make money in your life?" Questions like these get us engaged in the topic and lead us to the various deviant responses that Merton delineated: innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion.