Manga, Media, Social Construction v. Essentialism?
Manga, Media, Social Construction v. Essentialism?
For me, our visit to the Museum of Sex drove home some of the ideas that Weeks’ touched upon in his discussion of the social construction of sexuality. Weeks states that sexuality is shaped and given meaning by society and that it in turn shapes each of us. Each society, every culture, has very different ideas about sex and sexuality. Certain sexual behaviors, images and the like are deemed acceptable or not relative to the society that they are formed or presented in. Japanese manga, for instance, is undoubtedly enjoyed by people outside of Japan. As stated in the exhibition, the hairless genitals of the women depicted are accepted and even appreciated widely in Japan, but Western audiences are often made uncomfortable by that particular aspect. Apparently, these audiences were uncomfortable to such an extent that now manga carries a disclaimer stating that all the women depicted are of legal age. And why were Western audiences made uncomfortable? Well, I can’t speak for Japan, but in the US lack of genital hair often implies prepubescence and therefore pedophilia, a sexual perversion that carries great stigma in our society. This is just one example of variability between sexuality in different societies.
Just going to the museum and viewing the exhibits made me revisit some of Weeks’ five areas that are important to the social organization of sexuality. In terms of kinship and family systems, I would agree that the category goes beyond literal blood relationships and extends to our communities and who we identify ourselves with. I feel that the people we self-identify with play a large part in how our sexual habits are shaped. Though there are many divisions by which kinship and family systems can be determined, these divisions are where we feel we “belong” and therefore are where many of our ideas about sexuality are shaped.
Economic and social organization plays a huge role in the social construction of sexuality. In the minds of many, economics are what determines who should procreate and who shouldn’t. The socioeconomic status of individuals is viewed as very relevant, influencing and influenced by their sexuality. For instance, some people believe that people of a lower economic status have more children because they can’t afford birth control. In that same vein, many believe that only those who can support children economically should have them. The idea of socioeconomic status in relation to sexuality is prevalent — it was present in the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century and it is present today in anti-welfare rhetoric.
Social regulation plays a huge part in the construction of sexuality. And here’s where I start bringing my major up, but I think that a huge part of what unofficially influences social regulation is the media. Weeks’ references the sexual behavior of adolescents and the “rules” that they follow for what is deemed appropriate and is not. So much of what adolescent sexual behavior is viewed as acceptable is informed by what is present in the media. For instance, in the age of the celebrity sex tape, “sexting” amongst teens is HUGE. Before celebrity sex tapes, sending a half-naked (or completely naked) text or email may have been unthinkable, but now so many teens do it without a second thought that sexting is now, apparently, illegal. Does that stop it? No. Am I saying that teen sexting is a direct result of Paris Hilton’s sex tape? Not necessarily, but the fact that she suffered minimal consequences and actually gained more publicity/money/fame is definitely significant to teens’ more casual attitudes toward sending saucy texts.
The idea of the social construction of sexuality is in direct opposition to Norton’s essentialist take on homosexuality, that it is “organic” and “homosexuals are born and not made.” Though the ideas of the social construction of sexuality appeal to me more, I agree with both authors’ conflicting ideas. For instance, I agree with Norton’s statement about homosexuals being born, not made. I do not believe that someone can be “turned gay” or that social constructions can influence someone’s orientation in either (or both) direction(s). But I do believe that societies consrtuct gay sexuality in such a way that it is believed that gay people are audio-visually recognizable, when in truth they are not. I do believe that society constructs sexuality, but in keeping with the essentialist view, that construction is not so much in terms of preferences and behaviors, but in terms of what we think is acceptable and appropriate and what is not.
Wow, I’m sorry if this post was not entirely linear. I’m still trying to make sense of all these ideas and form my own opinions. Mainly, I am between social construction and essentialism. The museum visit definitely helped me formulate some ideas about the social construction of sexuality, which I am still pondering. And apparently, I could talk about the social construction of sexuality through the media all day.
Tags: celebrity, essentialism, family, gay, homosexuality, manga, media, museum of sex, perversion, sex tapes, sexting, social construction, social regulation, societies, socioeconomic
February 21st, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Hi Jaslee, I’m glad you have focused on the 5 categories that Weeks points to in his essay on social constructionism. They are key categories for us to keep in mind. I’d like you to continue your discussion of kinship in regard to the last chapters of Foucault’s work, especially what he says about the systems of alliance and symbolics of blood, pages 147-50. The other category that would be a good one for your to bring in again is the media. Given what you say about its capacity to shift attitudes, how do you gauge the influence of more gay positive depictions that are also in the media these days? Is this limited to societal acceptance of those already self-designated as gay or might it encourage more individual sexual fluidity as well?
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:42 am
I never really thought about the influence of the more positive gay depictions that are present in the media today. I guess I’ve mostly thought of it in terms of the unfortunate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and the passage of Prop 8.
But thinking about it now, I would say that the positive gay depictions have more influenced people, particularly the younger generations to become much more open minded. I think that it encompasses both those already self-designated as gay and encourages individual sexual fluidity as well. I am basing this assertion on real-life people and comments I’ve come across on pop-culture blogs. Many people I’ve met in my age range and younger are accepting and unsurprised by gay individuals, probably in part due to media exposure. Also, on various blogs I see people “shipping” gay couples.
To clarify, “shipping” is when you are a self-described fan of a relationship. This relationship is most often romantic and is what you consider your ideal pairing. This pairing can be an already existing pairing or one that you would like to see.
Anyway, on blogs I’ve seen a lot of people shipping fictional pairings of gay couples. And the majority of those pairings don’t actually exist. Example: from the show “Heroes,” a lot of people ship Nathan/Peter, a pairing that never actually happened (I personally think that’s creepy because they play brothers) because of the supposed sexual tension between the two hot actors.
And I think that openly gay celebrities and other public figures help influence understanding. Since some fit the stereotypical depiction of gayness and others do not, they dispel the myths of visible homosexuality.