In Response to "Disney Movies: Good? Bad?"

I'm a little torn on the question of whether Disney actually contributes to what most of us would classify as negative understandings of gender and race. On the one hand, we all grew up with Disney, and we view ourselves as perfectly fine -- unaffected by what we can point out in Disney as being real sexist depictions, often with racial undertones. On the other hand, the lasting differences in gender equality our society experiences, and the higher incidence of traditional gender representations in Disney than easily-recognized racial commentary, might suggest something is going on.

You mentioned your little survey of your cousins and I would comment on their responses. I think what is important to note is that representations of sex and gender in Disney are more subtle than the primary plots, which they commented upon. I would perhaps suggest that while your cousins may be coming to understand the concepts of gender and race, and beginning to internalize norms of gender-specific behavior, they might not be conscious of doing so. I don't think Towbin et al ever claimed that the primary themes of the films in question were actually about masculinity and femininity, although these might be reemerging themes nonetheless. Thus it is understandable that your questions did not elicit discussion regarding these things.

I think a better way to go about questioning children might be more direct questions as to why characters acted in such a way, or why they were successful, with the hopes of generating a gender-related comment fitting into the context of the film. For a child to comment upon the success of a character, or the likability of a character, with reference to gender would imply a way of conceiving the world and gender norms. If cause-and-effect is intelligible to the child, and they make a statement about, say, a Princess being loved by a Prince for her beauty in response to the question "why did the Prince love the Princess?", then a child capable of induction might be introduced to an argument: "Princesses are loved because they are beautiful"  or even "Women are desirable for their appearance." 

Original post: http://stratisthesundayschooldrop-out.blogspot.ca/2012/03/disney-movies-good-bad.html

Internalization, Playacting and Disney

This week we learned about sexuality and gender in the media. We learned that despite improvements in the depictions of women and different classes, lingering stereotypes exist even in our most popular entertainment, such as in Disney films. By inclining to value women for beauty over brains, and representing a limited number of possible vocations, Disney may be said to be reinforcing tradition notions of gender that are quite dissimilar from our contemporary society's expectations.

In "Images of Gender, Race, Age, and Sexual Orientation in Disney Feature-Length Animated Films”, Towbin is concerned with the possible internalization of gender roles as depicted in Disney films. Reading about the role of psychologists in encouraging critical dialogue with the material , I couldn't help but think of the reinforcement that Disney itself provides through a slough of other popular culture, including toys, costumes, and Disney Land.

My worry is that the risk of internalization might increase significantly by providing opportunities for, and encouraging, playacting and a recreation of the Disney narratives. And while massive amounts of mass-produced and massively popular action figures and toys facilitate recreation and active engagement with storylines, it is the harm done to females and specifically the limitations on females roles presented to young girls in the princess phenomena that interests me.

The Disney princess, as was mentioned in class, is a massive commodity, and a major popular-cultural phenomena. It is an incredibly popular franchise for Disney, with their 9 princesses, it is a very profitable marketing scheme, involving everything from films, dresses,and accessories to Disney Land. However, what are the values being imparted by these Disney princesses? According to Towbin, Disney is responsible for imparting notions of fragility and servility. However, that said, there seems to be a lot of resistance to negative interpretations of Disney on the internet, such as this website which is dedicated to the merits of Disney princesses as role models, or the comments on any You tube video negatively portraying Disney. I cautiously take this as an example of the power of brand loyalty.

In response to "Road to Redemption"

I certainly agree with you that there are instances when the line between human and monstrous is blurred, and that human beings are capable of grotesque acts.

That said, I would disagree with your classification of Tim Thomas as a monster, whereas I would point to those who willing kill other human beings as approaching that line. I think that one of the most important characteristic of monsters, in the sense that we have been using the term, is malevolence, or at the very least, a desire to do what we would call harm to others. One cannot construe Tim Thomas as wishing to kill the 7 people that he did, as it was, as you said, an accident. To call Tim Thomas as monster would be to classify him as other, a being whom we do not understand, and likely fear. I don't think this is the case at all. When it comes to Tim Thomas, we understand exactly how how he feels, just as we would feel he same way had we made such a terrible error in judgment.

I think the line is fine, but that monsters are ultimately characters that we cannot understand on the level of being: we share no recognizable cognitive processes, we do not think and feel the same way, fundamentally.

A human example of monster would be Michael Myers in John Carpenter's Halloween films.

This character does harm to others, by killing innocent people. What he does and desires is foreign to us on a basic level: he desires mayhem, he seeks blood, he kills the innocent. He is arguably a human being, biologically, yet he is distinctly "other" than us. The way that this type of character may be portrayed is by depicting him insane, to the extent that we would likely classify his cognitive processes as lacking something essential in the classification of "human". 

original post here: http://faithisourmedium.blogspot.ca/2012/03/road-to-redemption.html

A more knowable Other

In this week’s class we discussed the role monsters play in media to define both humanity and God. By suggesting something entirely unlike ourselves, we negotiate the characteristics that make us human. Similarly, according to negative theology, by portraying what God is not, we come to a better understanding of what he is. In particular, we discussed zombies and vampires in class, while the readings also alluded to ghosts and mummies. I would like to suggest, however, that representations of human beings with grotesque tendencies, who are monster like in action, are much more powerful than monsters that are clearly not (or no longer) human. These monsters fulfill a unique role in art by trying to understand the darkness of humanity in a much less metaphorical fashion.

The perfect example for what I am getting at is Hannibal Lecter, the fictional character from Silence of the Lambs, who is the perfect representative of the sociopathic serial killer. This character is very much a human biologically, however something blocks him from feeling a normal sense of social boundaries or moral sentiment. As a monster, he is quite distinct from mummies, zombies and vampires in that he’s alive, corporeal, and intelligent. Yet, Lecter’s inhumanity, his lack of feeling, his unrecognisable notion of “justice” are arguably more abhorrent and terrifying than the mindless hunger for destruction embodied by zombies.

The thing about Lecter is that he is ostensibly like us: human, alive, intelligent, and yet, so dissimilar. He represents moreso than any other genre what is perhaps the monstrous capacity residing with all, supernaturally/scientifically unaltered human beings. Indeed, in cases such as those of serial killers, and representations of the inhumane human, the boundaries between the monster as Other and us are incredibly blurred. It is for that reason that I think films like that resonate so much with us.

In response to "Playing God..."

I think the idea that gamers are already playing Christ figures is very interesting, although I'd have to disagree with you. I think we need to remember that the story of Christ is but one instance of the monomyth, or basic story line shared historically by many hero figures transculturally. While I would agree that the Superman myth shares many characteristics with Christ, I would echo the ideas from Deacy's article-- there is something qualitatively quite different from the Christ story that is not found in the Superman story. I think the perfect divinity of Christ, through whom all things were made, is a pretty significant difference to be mindful of when comparing the saving actions of both heroes.

On the other hand, I too am skeptical that there is anything terrible about video game representations of Christ. All representations are limited, however I'd echo the sentiment that video game representations and those in film are not incredibly different. In fact, video games as an artistic medium, present new opportunities for engaging with the narrative of Christ due to the interactivity and ability to explore the environment of said story. I remember playing the Lord of the Rings game for Playstation2 when I was much younger. To see the fantasy world of Tolkein's books before my eyes, and to interact with it, to explore unfamiliar places, and in to some way have an effect upon it, was engaging and exciting much more than merely watching the movies. Thus I think that there is a very real missiological function that might be capitalized upon in video games.

Original post here: http://jebuschristsuperstar.blogspot.ca/2012/03/playing-god.html

Methodological difficulties, and Christian responses to video game violence

As discussed in Michelle Brown's article, there has been a proliferation of media effects studies since the advent of new technologies such as television, which have mainly been concerned with whether exposure to violent incidents on television somehow encourages violent behaviour. While there have indeed been several hundred studies looking at this, hundreds more have analyzed the methodologies of said studies and argued for and against such causation. Brown alludes to the fact that since there are apparently contradicting results coming out of these studies which often utilize very different methods, it is very easy for research to fall into a "binaristic" model.

One major problem that I did not grand much credence to while reading Brown's article before class has been defining violence, which is not trivial given the majority of violence children are exposed to is cartoon violence. And within the category of cartoon violence itself there are distinctions, as some of it is more realistic and immersive than others. It is also useful to ask about whether the violence act is being portrayed as a positive thing. The importance of such distinctions is evidenced in this montage of cartoon violence from over the decades.

Additional difficulties in showing how violent atypical acts might be related to the consumption of media via media effects studies have to do with the way in which research is done. The laboratory setting is fundamentally different than real life, and adopting the theory that experience, including witnessing violence, provides scripts of how to act, then the laboratory experience is a very unusual setting without as many scripts. Further difficulties arise when considering whether periods of short term aggression or continued exposure somehow desensitizes some individuals to violence to the extent that they will completely abandon normal behaviour and commit an act of violence when it no longer seems worthwhile to adhere to norms. Even if it can be shown that exposure to violence increases short term aggression, what I am most interested is the change in how one comes to relate to the other, and unfortunately we are barred from measuring the slight changes in perception and thought processes which compose our consciousness. This is also of interest to me because of the Christian notion that thought and the will are important to living a good life.

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." (Matthew 15:19)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28)

A thoughtful Christian’s response to video game violence specifically might be concerned with the emotional state maintained, and acts of the will that are made, while playing video games. Christ taught that sin was not merely present in the physical action, but that sin could also be present in an act of the will; that one might sin in thought as they might sin in deed. I think that a Christian, even recognizing that a game is a fantasy environment, should have to come to terms with willing death in video games, and finding joy in succeeding in an attempt to kill. Recognizing the notion of transference in more and more immersive games, a Christian perspective on video games needs to confront the question of to what extent an avatar in an extension-of-the-self, and what it means to feel joy elicited by terminating representations of human beings.

Counter-points to such a characterization might be:
1) Does one actually feel negative emotion (e.g. hate) while playing video games?
2) There is no other person who is the target of a negative will.
3) Is there actually a will to death or harm while playing video games? How different is moving controls to overlap shapes in Call of Duty from, say, Pong?

The fact remains though, that we choose to participate in a narrative involving the glorification of killing. What does this mean, and how can a Christian come to terms with feeling pleasure while playing violent as opposed to non-violent games?

In Response to "The Normalization of Violence in Hockey: What Would Jesus Do?"

I think that you have a very good point when you note that "masculinity" is itself a manufactured quality that is often used as a tactic for profit-making. Keeping sports "masculine" is a perfect, although sinister, example of how an industry defines as necessary a tenuous quality which has connotations of gender inequality, self-harm, and harm to others. It is particularly sad that the idea of masculinity resonates so well with society -- leading to the effects such as you mentioned when you said that males are more prone to injury than females.

In response to your question, I don't think that much of what we talk about when we speak of "violence" in hockey is necessary. As pointed out in the article by Trothen, the term violence may be broadly defined and there may exist neutral, or even good forms of violence. I think that in hockey there is a necessarily violence component stemming from the fast-moving, contact nature of the sport (although, to define contact as a quality of hockey is to beg the question, which surprised me in her article). However, when it comes to hockey fights and making conscious decisions of a violent nature such as to check a player with their head down, I think we may view this behavior as reprehensible and unnecessary. This types of risky behaviors which contribute to the normalization of hockey violence at lower levels are not in the spirit of the game (communitas, the euphoria of teamwork, disciplining oneself), or at least in the game we should be encouraging.

What would Jesus do? Well, having taken notice of Weaver non-violent atonement theory, and recognizing Christ's imperatives towards peace, and Paul's espousal of virtues such as "gentleness", I would say the matter is pretty clear-- he would condemn it. Mindful of the influence we have on other people, Paul said, "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall (1 Corinthians 8:13)". I think our tolerance of violence in hockey -- especially on the level of coaches at minor league levels -- is wholly inappropriate, and Christian ethicists should hold them accountable.

Original post: http://dgcroatia305.blogspot.com/2012/03/normalization-of-violence-in-hockey.html

Rewarding Hockey Violence

In this week's lecture we received a commentary on violence in sport, which alluded very well to the pitfalls of a highly commercialized professional sports industry. In a community where the primary function has become monetary gain, it is unsettling to think about the violence and harm done to players, let alone to those who are watching. Great athletes have always been a group with which communities have been fascinated. For example, the Greek poet Pindar, in one of his victory odes, writes:

Great runner, four times victor at the Games,
But for a war you would have known no fame.
Though exiled from the bubbling springs of home,
Your swift pace made a new land's fields your own. 

But what happens when the war is taken to the game? When we cease to portray our athletes as peaceable, and when our athletic heroes become thugs who will stop at nothing to make a profit? 

What is particularly concerning to me is that as a society, we have chosen to so highly compensate our athletes, especially when professional sports such as hockey are so particularly violent and our myth of athletes serves so poorly to embody the values of sport that we have cherished so long. As Trothen points out, in professional sports, athletes are commodities to be traded by owners in order to make a profit. Similarly, our heroes of athletics will go to great lengths of self-harm and harming others in order to win.

Although I am hesitant to ever take such a position, I can't help but implore our society to "think of the children!" As McGurtry alluded in 1974, in his report for the Ontario government "Investigation and Inquiry into Violence in Amateur Hockey", we must certainly look towards professional-level hockey in order to explain the prevalence of violence at lower levels. When the ethic of sport becomes winning, and winning is synonymous with money-making at the cost of our values, we must be cautious. In Canada especially, where we have a special affinity for hockey, we must be critical of what cultural values we emphasize to our children when it comes to our national sport. After all, what is seen on television is easily practiced at the rink, especially when there is pressure from coaches to do so.

A response to Nhan's "Altru-Bieber-ism"

For the most part I quite agree with you. In terms of Justin Bieber as an individual, it is very difficult to judge whether his philanthropy stems from an interest in the welfare of others, or his (producers?) desire to capitalize off of a likable persona. Additionally you raise a fair point by saying that a great deal of good does come from this philanthropy despite its questionable origin.

I do not, however, think the difficulty of an assessment of sincerity, nor the utility served by an attention-focusing persona, means that we ought to dismiss questions as to the authenticity of Justin Bieber or other celebrities involved in philanthropy or public events. As human beings we often seem to espouse a notion of justice which prefers to recognize those who act selflessly, and for others, as opposed to those merely working for their own good. This is to, to an extent, a christiological characteristic of many of our cultural icons and mythological heroes. Our conviction that a giving heart is to be praised ought to stand. If ever we might show the intentions of celebrities to be truly backward; and indeed, we should always be critical of those shaping public opinions and swaying the swooning hearts of teenage girls, then we ought to condemn those lacking in virtue seeking to capitalize off of our own good natures and love of kindness and generosity.

So while I agree with some of your points, I'd like to add that I think that we as social critics ought to always maintain a suspicion of celebrities in this way, acting as a voice of conscience to shed light on those abusing public trust or teenage ignorance. This position is not even to agree with the merits of selfless philanthropy, but to stress a potential role of those thinking critically about sincerity to the public sphere.

Original post here: http://the-goldenlink.blogspot.com/2012/03/altru-bieber-ism.html

Authenticity of persona: an illusory quasi-virtue?

As a major theme of this week’s lecture, I have been musing over the notion of authenticity, curious as to what exactly it means for an artist, or a person, to be an authentic person as the phrase goes. It would be the philosophy student to quibble over definitions, but I think this is an important discussion. In the end, I am doubtful as to the merits of “authenticity” in art as I understand the word.

Dictionary.com defines “authentic” as follows:

authentic — adj
1. of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine: an authentic signature
2. accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable: an authentic account
3. (of a deed or other document) duly executed, any necessary legal formalities having been complied with

I think that the second meaning of the word is the most similar to the way in which we were using the word “authentic” in class. Still, what are the facts when it comes to a person, and in what way do human beings represent the facts of their identity, as it seems is necessary for there to be an authentic person? What makes Lady Gaga an authentic artist or not?

I think the simplest way for a person to be authentic is for them to consciously seek to portray to others their own sense of identity; that is, they do not seek to exaggerate or misrepresent their emotions, inclinations or activities to others. Similarly, they are sincere in that they act in a way for the reasons that they allude to, not out of hidden motives. So, for Lady Gaga to stress her hyperspeed post-modern fashion sense, or her feeling of alienation, instead of giving "airtime" to other aspects of her person, might be insincere.

But I am skeptical about whether one might ever represent these things in a truly adequate fashion, and the extent to which one must make these things known. Everyone must inevitably portray oneself in a limited way in all social interactions. One cannot be all that they are at any given moment. Thus, it might be said that one is merely a shadow of their whole self at any given time, in a manner similar to the notion of persona. So one might argue that one cannot reveal all the complexity of oneself and thus cannot be completely authentic at any given moment in time.

The criticism might be posed that to willingly deceive is different than to withhold, however I think that the distinction is not completely unrelated. To truthfully speak of oneself, one cannot merely allow a few interrelated traits to make themselves known: to be truthful in describing oneself this caricature would have to be expanded such that one knows all of the traits of a person, their relative importance, and relations within a person. This is impossible, a reformulation of Kierkegaard's idea of the unknowable other. There is something about each and every person -- a formulation of their characteristics and experiences -- that makes knowing them, in particular what it is to be them, unknowable.

Even if we do not acknowledge that, the modern view of art tends to do away with the notion of there being a concrete message that the artist seeks to convey in a piece of art. Rather art facilitates a space where a dialogue might occur between art and audience. I think that for such a dialogue to occur, one need not consider the artist behind the artwork -- it is the piece itself which contains the meaning, which may involve the usage of an explicit persona in cases of music videos. For the artist to portray herself in a particular manner is to make an aesthetic decision which demands interpretation. In the case of Lady Gaga for example, as alluded to in the article by Corona, her work may be interpreted as a consciousness of the hyperspeed of culture and the evolution of memory and belonging in such a context. We should not judge Gaga's persona in artistic contexts as a representation of herself, but as a character component of the art she produces.

New Blog

Hi Everyone, 


A little about me: 


My name is Michael and I'm a first year currently taking two third-year SMC courses. When I first came to Toronto I was leaning towards atheism, however I'm not so sure now. I'll likely specialize in philosophy, and take a few more courses involving religion along the way. I'm from a small town in Ontario and most of my experiences with religion have involved protestant, rather American-style, Christianity; although, since coming to Toronto I have been introduced to a more traditional form of Christianity via the Anglican church at Trinity.


Anyway, I really look forward to discussing the course with all of you.