WMST488A

Learning Analysis

2007-05-09T11:40:00.000-07:00

Over the course of this senior seminar class I went through periods of confusion and understanding. Initially I was extremely confused when I found out the class was going to examine reenactments. I asked myself “what does this have to do with feminism?” This was followed by a period of thinking that I had it all figured out. Just as I thought I completely understood what the course was about I was confronted with material that confused me all over again. This was cyclical; I had periods of confusion that seemed to be answered by periods of understanding that were just greeted by more confusion. Though it could be frustrating at times, this is why the course was so effective. Even though I got frustrated when I thought I understood something but I found out that I really didn’t, I was determined to go forward and try to gain an understanding of the concept.

The idea of “intellectual pleasure” was central to this class. It was different than any other course I’ve taken so far. Although it was more difficult it was also more pleasurable. It was difficult in that we as students weren’t given specific structure and instructions for assignments. Throughout our academic careers we were told exactly what to do and how to do it. This course immersed us in an intellectual environment where we had to think for ourselves. While it was difficult it was also liberating and much more rewarding. The thoughts and ideas I produced were my own, not mere regurgitations that I had to show off in order to let the professor know I did the work. Instead we took the knowledge we acquired and did something with it by formulating new concept and relating concepts that we learned to women’s studies and feminist theory. There was a sense of academic maturity and integrity in this course. Students were trusted to be able to write papers and be prepared for discussion without specific instructions and assignments. This gave me a sense of enjoyment and freedom that I never experienced in any other college class.

At first I had no idea what the argument for this course was supposed to be. When I learned that we were going to be looking at reenactments in this course I had no idea what this had to do with women’s studies. Before I took this class I associated the word “reenactment” only with the recreation of historical events. I never looked at reenactments as simply recreations of anything. After I reexamined what reenactments are I was able to relate them to women’s studies. In fact, the whole course seemed to focus on exactly what I had done with reenactments, to reexamine knowledge and reality. Even reality had a whole new meaning now. There was no longer one reality, there were multiple realities. During this course I was cast into a whole new way of thinking. Things that seemed certain were no longer certain; there were new possibilities about what anything could be. I started asking questions like “what is real?” Could I even know what is real? Is reality for me reality for everyone else? Everything was jumbled up and I loved it. I was and still am confused, but finding what might be the answers is definitely intellectual pleasure.

Though this course was called “Feminism and New Knowledge Environments: Examining Reenactments”, it seemed more about alternative knowledges to me. We looked at what reenactments are: artificial representations of knowledge meant to replicate the knowledge as close to the real thing as possible. Reenactments can be powerful tools in representing these knowledges. We looked at Colonial Williamsburg as an example of this. In Richard Handler and Eric Gable’s The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg, the presentation of historical reality was questioned. Handler and Gable discussed the recent effort to present a more accurate representation of colonial history at Colonial Williamsburg. They look at how Colonial Williamsburg is a mix between a pedogogical museum, setting and a tourist attraction. These two features of Colonial Williamsburg are often at odds with each other and have created criticism about how history is presented there. Reenactments are a popular sight at Colonial Williamsburg and many people accept these reenactments as accurate retellings of the past. The authors of The New History at and Old Museum critique the way history is presented at the park. They look at how Colonial Williamsburg used to present a glossed over and idealized version of colonial history and left out issues such as slavery. Colonial Williamsburg now includes exhibits and reenactments about slavery in order to include the negative aspects of colonial history and present a seemingly more accurate version of it.

Handler and Gable’s text really helped me connect historical reenactments with the more general concept of reenactments that we used in this course. This text showed me how powerful reenactments are in terms of convincing people what reality is. It also helped me better understand how the interests of those in power can influence what is seen as reality. This is where the concept of authoritative and alternative knowledge comes in. In Handler and Gable’s text Colonial Williamsburg’s original presentation of colonial history was a simplified and glorified version. This can be considered the authoritative knowledge. In other words this is the knowledge that mainstream white America sees history as. As people tried to make Colonial Williamsburg more accurate in its portrayal of colonial history and to include all people, alternative knowledge began to be included in the park. There was more information on African Americans in colonial America and on slavery. The history presented at Colonial Williamsburg became less idealized but included more alternative knowledge so that different perspectives on colonial history were presented.

This examination of authoritative and alternative knowledge fits into the women’s studied curriculum by looking at how knowledge is controlled and acknowledging that what is seen as true for one person may be wrong to another. This includes what we know about gender. I focused what I learned in this course on gender and its social construction. This is because I see the current expectations and “rules” about how males and females are supposed to act as problematic. This is why I used gender and reenactments as the subject for my reenactments paper in this class. I seem to be able to relate most of what I learn in women’s studies to gender. It was a natural step for me to look at gender as a reenactment of social norms.

When I read Stacy Roth’s Past into Present: Effective Techniques for First Person Historical Interpretation, I found that many of the performance methods used in historical reenactments are used in everyday life. I saw that people perform their gender and overemphasize it much like people do in stage performances. In many of my other women’s studies classes we talked about the idea of “doing gender.” This course’s focus on reenactments has a lot to do with this concept, the idea of recreating an idea and exaggerating it to get the point across. But then I thought to myself, “whose ideas?” This is where alternative and authoritative knowledge comes in. The gendered ideas that a lot of people try to recreate are based on the authoritative knowledge that males and females look, act, think, and are different. The alternative knowledges about gender allow for similarities among males and females and allow for alternative gender identity.

This brings me to what I see as the overall argument of the class. This course seemed to be a lesson in questioning what we think is real. This course made me question if reality even exists. This course taught me to question everything and to think about if what I see is what is real or if it is a reenactment. Is what I’m seeing really the way the world is or is it a reenactment of things we are expected to do or how things are supposed to be? This course was also a lesson in questioning what we learn. Did the courses we took throughout our educational lives include alternative knowledges or did they leave out other perspectives? This course was designed to make us think. Although I learned a lot in the class I’ve come away from it with more questions. This course prepared us as women’s studies majors to go out and question the patriarchal society we live in.

This course prepared me to be a feminist in that it helped me learn how to criticize current society and make sense of the process in which I criticize it. It helped me understand why I think the things I do. I always knew that I rejected the authoritative knowledge that women act differently than men because of some innate difference. I never knew about the concept of authoritative knowledge versus alternative knowledge. Learning about this helped me make sense of my criticism in order to better understand it and provide more ways to back up what I think.

One book that we read that illustrated this point well was Steven Johnson’s Everything Bad is Good for You. In this book Johnson takes the mainstream and authoritative knowledge that things such as playing videogames and watching TV is bad for you and turns it around to say that there are many great benefits to those activities. This is exactly the kind of questioning of authoritative knowledge this course aimed to teach us. Johnson also formulates a viable alternative knowledge much like we had to do in our reenactments paper. This text really helped me understand the idea of alternative knowledges and the importance of that knowledge.

Another book that we read in the class was Remediation: Understanding New Media by Jay Bolter and Richard Grusin. This book illustrated how media affects us in many ways. Bolter and Grusin use the word “remediation” to describe how old forms of media such as photographs and writing are recycled into the newer forms we have today such as computer games and the internet. This concept of remediation means that the media we have today is a reenactment of past forms of media. When you think about it, media itself is a reenactment of an original object or idea. Bolter and Grusin’s book helped me understand reenactments outside of the historical context and to broaden my view of what reenactments are and how they affect me in my daily life.

When I think about what role I played in our discussions throughout the semester I have to admit that I could have done a lot more. I had a lot of problems with attendance this semester. I don’t really have an official excuse for my absence throughout the semester, but I was dealing with a lot of personal issues that made focusing myself on my classes difficult. When I was in class I tried to be a part of the discussion. I tried to offer a critical view of authoritative knowledge while being open to the various alternative knowledges presented by my classmates. When I added to the class discussion I often talked about gender identity and expression. I consider this my contribution to the class. The students in the class had various backgrounds and brought unique insights to the class. My background as being a woman who is dissatisfied with the expectations of me as a female member of society allowed me to connect the concepts in this course with gender identity and expression.

I mentioned before that I had numerous instances of missing class. I made up for this by keeping up with the syllabus and with the readings. I also kept in contact with classmates in order to ask them what I missed. Although I kept up with the readings I’ll admit I wasn’t very faithful to my blog. This is again due to my inability to get myself motivated this semester. I regret this not only because it is going to affect my grade in the course but also because I missed out on some very interesting discussions.

Overall I found this course to be intellectually pleasurable. Unlike a most classes I’ve taken in college I was given freedom to get what I wanted from the course. By being given no specific instructions I was able to write and think about what mattered to me most. This class has been more rewarding than a lot of other classes I’ve taken because of this. I was able to make this class be about what I wanted it to be. We were provided with tools for thinking about it but were given the freedom to decide what to use the tools on.

Reeactments Paper: Sex and Gender as a Reenactment

2007-03-28T10:06:00.002-07:00

In today’s mainstream American society, and most societies around the world and in every time period, there have been a set of norms that men and women are supposed to adhere to. While these norms vary across cultures and time, there have always been ways in which men should act and ways in which women should act. These sets of acceptable behavior are often taken for granted and accepted as natural and “just the way it is.” From a young age, people are socialized into acting a certain way based on their sex, male or female. This sex and gender classification is seen as concrete and unchangeable. In this essay I will examine this phenomenon and look at sex and gender from a different standpoint. I will present sex and gender as a reenactment of social expectations, as a recreation of what is generally accepted as real and the truth. Looking at sex and gender as a reenactment ties in well with historical reenactments because both are seen as accurate depictions of what really happened and what is considered the definitive truth. By examining both historical and sex/gender reenactments, I will show how both are not the definitive truth, but simply one possible interpretation of reality while many alternative interpretations exist.

From the moment of birth people are placed in one of two categories, male or female. From then on this classification affects people’s expectations of our behavior, looks, desires, interests, and many other aspects of our lives. While a few deviations from this set of expectations are generally accepted, a person who does not follow a lot of these expectations, or someone who defies one expectation seen as important (such as sexual desire), is often subject to social punishment for this transgression. Social punishment involves teasing, discrimination, hate crimes, and other ways in which people who are considered deviant are negatively treated for their so-called deviance. Examples of this is when a young boy is made fun of for playing with toys designed for girls, or a girl being considered “unnatural” for wanting to play football. While these activities are what these people naturally want to do, they are seen as unnatural for them based on their sex. This social punishment occurs whenever an individual does something considered “unnatural” for their gender.

Gender Ideologies as a Collection of Knowledge

Looking at gender as a reenactment of social norms is a useful way to understand both the way in which our knowledge of gender is constructed and the actual performance of gender. When we think of the word “reenactment” we usually think of a retelling of a historical event. We envision people dressed in the proper attire for the time period they are reenacting, with the type of tools and equipment they used in that time period. We also envision them behaving in a way that the people they are representing are thought of as behaving, and doing the same things that the actual historical figures did. The reenactment is supposed to portray the historical event as real as possible so that the audience experiences the historical event “as it really happened.” But how do we know how the event really took place? How do we really know that the reenactors know what happened, or that they are telling the story truthfully? It is impossible to genuinely know what really happened in the past. History can be distorted; certain aspects can be left out, exaggerated, made up, or forgotten. It is important to realize that our knowledge of history is controlled by those who have power in the present. In other words, the people who presently control knowledge get to decide which knowledge is definitive, what to include and what to leave out.

It is important to look at alternative knowledges when we want to understand history and decide for ourselves what we believe is the truth. When I took two classes on women in U.S. history (which would be considered an alternative source of knowledge) I learned about the contributions of women and non-white ethnicities to U.S. history. For example the founder of the U.S. Sanitary Commission was a woman and the inventor of the blood transfusion was African-American. Much of what we learn about history through textbooks, lectures, and reenactments must be examined and added to what we understand as the truth.

The same examination of knowledge is required when we look at what gender is. Definitive knowledge about gender is based on scientific studies about how our biology makes us who we are. While scientific and medical studies are very useful and often reliable, we must look at the biases that the test may have as well as personal agendas and beliefs the people doing the study might have. People like to think that male and female brains are different, that our hormones determine our personality and gender expression, that males and females are different not just in terms of biology, but in our behavior as well. This is most likely because knowledge is largely controlled by heterosexual males. Many large educational institutions are controlled by white heterosexual males, whose personal opinions and beliefs decide on what in included in our knowledge of gender. This is not to say that all white heterosexual males believe the same things and suppress knowledge about what gender is; but it is an acknowledgment that we do still live in a society that holds many prejudices towards people in terms of sexual and gender identity.

When looking at what is considered definitive knowledge about gender we must realize that the information we get is filtered by the media and is only one perspective of a complex issue. We must not take our knowledge of gender for granted, but instead examine and question what our knowledge is based on. Ideas we take as facts may not be the truth; “facts” about gender can be exaggerated, left out, and made up like they are in history. Just as people often see reenactments as an exact replica of a historical event, they see gender expectations as a replica of how people really act. Reenactments are powerful tools and are useful in many ways; this is why our view of gender identity and roles is often so unquestioned.

Gender Expression and Norms as a Reenactment of Social Expectations

Looking at gender as a reenactment not only works for understanding how knowledge is presented, controlled, and valued but also works for understanding gender roles and behavior as a reenactment itself. Reenactments in the familiar historical context are a type of performance. Gender can be seen in much of the same way, as a performance. When discussing reenactments and gender it is important to look at the “re” part of reenactment. Reenactments are not the real event; they are a representation of it, or a retelling. They are not the actual event. Historical reenactments are reproductions of a historical event or time period. Gender expression is a reenactment of ideas about how males and females are supposed to act. Just like historical reenactments are not the actual historical event, reenactments of gender are constructed and artificial.

We are given script to use in our daily activities that tell us how we are supposed to behave in certain situations, how we are supposed to dress for our daily performance, and ways in which we are supposed to act in order to effectively portray our character. For example, women are typically supposed to wear feminine looking clothes to accentuate the female body and act in ways in which are seen as feminine, such as being more reserved in conversation. This is all done to convince other members of society that they are “real” women. When someone does something that is not on the script of how men and women are supposed to act, it often confuses the other actors in the reenactment. People are thrown off and don’t know how to react. Even a simple unexpected event such as when a woman opens a door for a man throws people off. Often when I do this, I see the man pause as if thinking about what to do in reaction. Such a simple unscripted act can throw off an entire “performance” of gender.

The idea of gender itself is a reenactment. Gender is not a natural identity, it is a social construction based on biological sex. Reenactments are a type of performance that includes many other aspects of performing arts. One of these is melodrama, the idea that one must exaggerate a point in order for it to seem real. When someone is performing onstage they have to overemphasize things such as bodily movements, facial expressions, and clothing. This is all done so that people in the audience can clearly see what is going on onstage from a distance.

We perform our gender in much of the same way as actors portraying characters on stage. In order for someone to come across as a member of the masculine or feminine gender they must behave and look in ways that emphasize the expectations for that gender. Women’s clothing is often designed to call attention to the female from, primarily breasts and hips. Feminine dress is an essential part of being seen as a woman in society. When a woman wears clothing that is loose, does not accentuate the feminine body and is seen as otherwise masculine, no matter how female looking her actually body is, she is seen as less feminine. Woman are also expected to emphasize their femininity by wearing make up and having hair that is done in a way that looks what society considered appropriate for a female individual. None of these ways of looking are inherently innate to being female, but often times all of these ways of performing gender are seen as natural. Women who do not wear make up, form fitting clothes, or have short hair (which is considered masculine in our society) are seen as less female, even though they are as biologically female as a woman who is considered feminine. The same is true for men in our society; men are expected to exaggerate their masculinity in order to be seen as not feminine. In other words gender expression is melodramatic; exaggerated masculinity and exaggerated femininity are what is seen as the natural way to be. In the way that society is constructed one must exaggerate their gender in order to be seen as a “proper” member of their sex. Simply being biologically male or female is not enough, we must perform it in order to be convincing to our audience.

While many people see males and females performing their respective masculine and feminine activities as natural, there is a lot of contrary evidence that we witness in everyday life. For example look at the information featured in women’s magazines. There are pages after pages of instructions on how to look more feminine, including clothing, make up, hair styling, and ways of attracting men. If our gendered behavior is so natural, then why must women be instructed on how to appear feminine?

When I think about whether or not people’s gendered behavior is natural or taught I think of when I was younger and entering puberty. While I was experiencing physical changes in my body, I didn’t become what people expected of me as a young woman. I remember my mother telling me how to sit, talk, walk, and generally how to act like a woman; my mannerisms did not fit into the expectations of what they should be now that I was officially a woman. She kept telling me that I was a woman now and that I should show it by acting feminine. I always replied with something like “I’m a girl, that’s feminine enough.” Apparently it wasn’t enough. I was told that it was “not normal” for me to have no desire to do things like wear make up or shave my legs. I was supposed to naturally want to do things that were the opposite of natural. The natural thing to do was to let my body be natural; getting rid of all the hair on my legs and covering my face with make up seemed unnatural to me. While gendered ways of behaving are taken for granted and seen as natural, the idea that people have to be taught how to act like a woman or man contradicts the theory that males and females behave in different ways because of perceived innate differences.

Physical Sex as a Reenactment of Biological Expectations

So far in this paper I have analyzed gender expression as a reenactment of expectations of people bases on their physical sex. What if we can take it even further and look at biological sex as a reenactment? Just as we often see people’s behavior as men and women as natural, we see two clearly defined biological sexes, male and female. While the majority of individuals fall into the categories of male and female, there are a substantial number of people who do not. Some children are born intersexual, having physical sex characteristics of both males and females. Some individuals change their biological sex from male to female or female to male. How do we explain this? Clearly biological sex is not as concrete as we often assume it is.

When a child is born intersexed it is considered a medical abnormality. Usually surgery is done to “correct” the “problem” and the child is raised as either male or female and given the proper hormones. This is supposed to enable people to live their lives as a “normal” male or female and to avoid confusion later on in life. The result of this type of treatment for intersexed individuals has proven to be anything but a benefit to most people. Many intersexed individuals feel that they were assigned the wrong sex, or that no assignment was right for them and that they prefer to be both sexes. In this case biological sex is a reenactment of how the medical society believes that there are two distinct sexes with nothing in between. In reality intersexed individuals can function well in society without intervention to make them either male or female. The surgery performed on intersexed infants in done more for the convenience of society than for the individual. We do not want to question the beliefs about sex that we think are the truth.

If we look at how our view of intersexuals is a reenactment instead of the actual “event” of sex we can see that our view as sex as two defined categories of male and female is flawed. We have a two sex model of biology that does not allow for the many people who are not either completely male or completely female. While models are useful in making larger ideas easier to understand they leave information out. This is why they are models; they are representations of a larger idea rather than the idea itself. Reenactments are models meant to help people understand previous events. The problem arises when we accept the model or reenactment as reality. In this case we accept that there are only two sexes, male and female, and that anyone in between is a mistake that must be corrected. We forget that models leave things out; in this case intersexuals are left out. Instead of adjusting the model in the case of inersexed individuals, we adjust individuals to fit the model. The “correcting” of intersexed children by surgery, hormones, and nurturing is a reenactment of our views that there are only two sexes, male and female. It is a reenactment because the two sex system that we see as natural is not natural for every individual and has to be recreated for those who do not fit our idea of what normal is.

We can also analyze transsexuals in terms of reenactments. Here the question is more about whether or not a person changing their biological sex is a reenactment or not. From a first glance it would appear that transpeople are reenacting the two sex system by changing their original biological sex into the other sex. This works until we remember that the current two sex model we have is itself a reenactment of what we think is real. While there are of course males and females, the idea that sex is concrete and unchangeable is questionable. We must ask ourselves what is biological sex? Is it hormones, chromosomes, primary, or secondary sex characteristics? Everything but chromosomes can be changed so it is possible that one can actually change their sex without it being artificial. What is needed here is a reevaluation of the view of biological sex as either male or female, with no possibilities of being both, neither, or any other possibility. We must look at this model as a reenactment of our societal beliefs that males and females are separate sexes and that an individual is born either male or female. We must also realize that biological sex is not as concrete as we think it is.

Recall the concept of definitive and alternative knowledges that was used in looking at how society views gender. Here the definitive knowledge is the mainstream and currently medically accepted view that there are only two sexes. The alternative knowledges acknowledge that while most individuals are male or female, some people are neither, both, or any other variation of sex. Looking at the alternative views of biological sex is beneficial because it allows for people who are marginalized by the definitive view that does not allow for variations in biological sex. By creating models that are more flexible in terms of biological sex, intersexuals and transpeople are not seen as problematic and allows for people to live their lives as they feel most comfortable. Just as people feel cramped and uncomfortable in a society that sees gender expression as either masculine or feminine bases on biological features, many people feel uncomfortable in a system that dictates what is normal and abnormal in terms of sex.

Questioning Definitive Knowledge and What We “Know”

Much of what we “know” goes unquestioned and is taken as the absolute truth. In order to better understand sex and gender we must reevaluate the beliefs we hold about it. We must examine if we really “know” what we do about sex and gender or if these “facts” are just strongly held beliefs. If we look back in history about what people “knew” about the world we see that many ideas and theories had to be reevaluated and sometimes thrown out. We must look at our theories about sex and gender in the same critical way. What we know as the facts now could look ridiculously untrue years from now. A reevaluation of sex and gender is necessary in order to better understand ourselves in terms of our sexual and gender identities. It is also necessary in order to end discrimination and prejudice against people who do not fit mainstream society’s rigid view of sex and gender and to allow people to be themselves without fear of social punishment. We must look at our system of sex and gender as a reenactment of social norms rather than the reality of what sex and gender really is.

Reactions to Handler and Roth

2007-02-28T10:22:00.000-08:00

Today’s readings were Stacy Roth’s Past into Present and Richard Handler and Eric Gable’s The New History in an Old Museum. Both texts are about ways of teaching history. Handler’s text focuses more on a scholarly anthropological study on new ways of teaching history at Colonial Williamsburg. In the first chapter of the book, he goes into detail about how up until the 1970s Colonial Williamsburg offered a glossed over view of colonial life. It focused mainly on white upper class males. Handler mentions that after the political and social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, people no longer wanted to see this idealized version and wanted to see a more accurate portrayal of life for all people, not just the advantaged ones. The current way that history is taught at Colonial Williamsburg now includes the negative aspects of colonial history more than it used to. Handler and Gable’s text is an outside study on reenactments. It looks at reenactments from a scholarly perspective instead of actually going into the methods used by reenactors.

Roth’s text looks at reenactments from a different perspective. Her book focuses on the methods used by the reenactors themselves. If Handler’s book is an outside view, hers is an inside view. She discusses methods such as first-person reenactments and third-person reenactments and the advantages and disadvantages to both. Her text is less of a critical study on how history is portrayed and more of a discussion on what reenactments are and can do. While both texts are of great value, I found Roth’s to be more entertaining to read. I though learning about the methods of reenactments more interesting than a scholarly critique of Colonial Williamsburg.

Reflections on Reenactments

2007-02-28T10:02:00.000-08:00

When I first learned that we were going to be discussing reenactments in my women’s studies senior seminar, I first thought “why?” I didn’t understand how reenactments are at all related to women’s studies. But as I further looked at what reenactments are and what they do, I soon learned that they are very relevant. Usually when I think about the word “reenactments,” I think of reenactments of certain battles or other specific events in history. But upon further research I realized that reenactments can include a wide variety of situations. They can be a depiction of everyday life in historical times, a retelling of the events that happened in a crime scene or car accident so that people know more accurately what happened there. Reenactments can be powerful tools in showing people what history was like (or not like). Since reenactments are such powerful tools, we must examine how they are done. Often times history in inaccurately depicted; it is idealized and simplified. The history we learn about the U.S. for example often leaves out the injustices done to many people in this country. These include injustices towards women and non-white ethnic groups. That is where reenactments relate to women’s studies. We must reexamine how history is taught, including reenactments which claim to provide accurate portrayals of how life was in historical times. From this we can rediscover what was left out of or history classes and learn about the real experiences or groups left out of those classes, such as women.

In our class we had to find a local reenactment group. Most of the groups I found in my Google search were concerned with reenactment of Revolutionary and Civil war battles. I found one group called Colonial Women. Their site was a work in progress but said they are a living history group concerned with portraying the lives of common women in the 17^th century. I really wish there was more information on the website because this group sounds a lot different then the other ones I found, in that it focuses on women. I will have to check back later when the work on the website is finished.