Language/Symbolic Interaction

I had another thought about this recently, and am going to try to say it more succinctly (on an unserious note--was thinking "verbosen-verboten" not 'cause I really want to impose this on myself, but just 'cause the words are funnily similar :-).

I'm thinking about the "real" actually in conjunction with reading "Frankenstein" (odd similarities with "Jane Eyre" I'm noticing).  And that got me thinking about the monsters description the GC has under myth-making.  I'm going to post something separately on Frankenstein once I'm done rereading it, but looking at the monster descriptions led me to think this about the popularity of the Susan Boyle video.

One thing I had thought of before was that these talent shows often seem to have one judge who is either Simon Cowell or a Simon Cowell type: haughty, judgmental, and often a Brit.  This judge is picked to be the "bad guy" in the story, I think, by the people who put these kinds of shows together.

As a monster--this judge would be the vampire.  The Britishness gets associated with being upper-class--aristocracy who gets their identity through land and blood.  I think vampires stand for the same land and blood identity but in a negative way.  (land being graves for vamps)  Rather than a fixed and stable social hierarchy which is the myth of the aristocracy, land and blood become uncoupled from what they're supposed to mean.  Or what the GC was describing as the vamp's lack of spirituality is what I'd describe as lack of meaningfulness.  They're alive, they have mental capacity--but are soulless, have no reflection in the mirror (there's no one really inside).

The other kind of monster I was thinking of in connection with the video would be either the zombie or the golem--not sure.  But I think this monster stands for the kind of artifice that people judge in women who are using a lot of obvious make-up (I think of Tammy Faye Baker's mascara) or are having things done to their bodies--augmenting their natural appearance in some way.  The zombie connection--I was thinking of how these women are judged as "bimbos."  But with plastic surgery there's a certain "golem" like or Frankenstein's monster thing going on too.

So I think in today's culture in particular people are suffering from high degrees of alienation.  I think the kind of reality shows like American idol captialize on those emotions.  The source of alienation gets represented by the vampire type judge--the soulless, whose cynicism is going to harshly judge and rob meaning from the contestant.  And the zombie/golem serves as an "anti" version of the contestant.  The contestant should be real while these anti versions are just body, just simulacrum, but not real.  Maybe these anti-versions are what the body becomes after the vampire has robbed it of meaning.

I'm writing this because to me this story isn't just "happening"--I think these shows play on these fears (in particular of alienation, meaninglessness, isolation) and offer a happy ending sotry sometimes--as in this particular video--but that this just continues the status quo rather than helps get at why these feelings of alienation are produced in this culture.

And just tangentially, I'm realizing as I describe this, that some of this same stuff was played out in the Carrie Prejean/Perez Hilton controversy.  Vampires/Aristocracy--there's an association of both of those with effeminacy.  And I think Carrie Prejean was sometimes being portrayed as either--a genuine person who's views were being robbed of meaning/importance by the vampire judge, or on the other side sometimes being judged as the zombie bimbo.

(Hmmm, the whole Adam Lambert brouhaha recently would be interesting to think of in this framework too, but I stop now.  Dang--my verbosen button didn't go off!)

Lots of reasons why the Susan Boyle video became so immensely popular:

- seeing Simon, a national celebrity, someone who can be abrasive and condecending to people trying their best, someone who can be so good at humiliating people on national TV, seeing him so overwhelmed by this woman's talent that he was humbled, was savoring to the rest of us in the world who identify with Susan.

- here is a champion for the scruffy, but talented of the world

- take the above to a national TV show and you've got near global exposure

- take a show, that is about appearance as much as it is about talent, then someone like Susan stands the show on its ear and says: "I may not be Faith Hill or Shania Twain in "the looks" department, but haul their ass out on stage and let's see them try to blow me away in the vocal department. Ain't happening." If vocals were a weapon, she'd be a formidable adversary.

If you were driving in your car and her song came on the radio, would it matter at that point what she looked like? Meaning would you change the channel? Maybe if you weren't into her kind of music, but if you're into opera, does it get any better?. I come back to Kate Smith and the Philadelphia Flyers in the mid 70's. Kate looked more like one of the hockey players than a contestant on Idol, but she could rock the house with her rendition of "God Bless America." 

Wanted to have another go at this after getting some good feedback from DL.  I'm dividing up here into trying to define in this post what it is I'm talking about when I'm referring to the "real" (including why I'm putting it in quotation marks), and then above a different post about Susan Boyle. In response to this one, I'd appreciate feedback first about whether I'm being clear, then as to the extent of which my perception of what's going on seems accurate to other people or not.

What I'm trying to define in talking about the "real" is not reality but a kind of ideology or marketing tool.  It presents a particular kind of frame as if it is not a frame--as if it is "just the way things are."  By including a denial of framing--that it is real or natural and not constructed--it is self-reinforcing and makes change difficult.

Here's an example in regard to gender:  When J.S. Mill argued before the British Parliament in the 19th century that women should have more active participation in public life, including the right to vote, he mentioned that it was often said that a public role was not in women's nature--it was not who they "really were."  So the fact that women didn't vote or were discouraged from working, or couldn't inherit property, etc.--these things were all looked at as just the way things are--the nature of reality--not something that was imposed by laws or could change through laws.  But Mill countered that if this were actually the way things were then one wouldn't need all the laws which kept women from participating in the public sphere.

So I see this kind of propagandistic use of the "real" being defined as something outside of social/cultural/historical influence.  Then if I apply that to concepts of the self or to identity--the self is seen as "real" only insomuch as it is seen as very strongly separated from social/cultural influence.

Jaz, you asked for feedback as to whether you are being clear here. My answer: yes. And the reason is due to the digestible size of your statement. That's not a "Jaz thing" but rather a human's ability to absorb concepts in bite sizes. I am NOT saying you are verbose or long winded, but in this forum, I (and I can only speak for me) find it easier to read and respond in small bites.

Now to your perception: what I see you have defined above is known as a paradigm. "It's just the way things are" becomes the default response from anyone asked the question. Usually because people are unwilling/unable to look into the detail and actually test the validity of the challenge. Imagine Colombus fuming to the paradigm, "the world is flat" so best not sail west for lest ye fall off the edge of the planet. Same for Copernicus. Same for any scientist who dared to challenge the paradigm before him in his day.

Your example of Mill is a perfect paradigm. While women may not have agreed with Parliment, the sentiment was there. The frustrating issue, for women: how do we break this paradigm? Answer: we'll send forth the likes of Rosa Parks, Ameilia Earhart, Babe Didrickson <insert your favorite strong female willing to challenge the restrictions of her day> and evantually we'll chip away at the injustice.

But! How does that help us with the Boyle issue? I'm ducking now...

Right...paradigm...that's what I meant :-)

Well--I'll say it then--I do get windy sometimes...got to watch the diet :-)

As far as how the Susan Boyle video fits, I want to see if I can explain the "real" paradigm 'fore I go back to why I thought it was popular.

Thanks, for the feedback though Stip!

She's been called a racist (by Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and Representative Tom Tancredo) on the basis of the following remark:

" I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." 

The context of the remark is the following which hasn't been largely quoted:

"Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I…believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable…. However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Because she admits that she is affected by these social/cultural categories Sotomayor's decisions are seen as suspect.  She was strongly questioned about those remarks when she appeared before the judiciary committee. A real or genuine judgment has to be seen as being free of any kind of outside influence.  But I don't actually believe there is such a thing (as a judgment completely individual in that way--completely separated from culture, society and history).  Conversely--the Senators who have referred to her as "bullying" lawyers do not look at the way in which their perception might be based on cultural messages about gender (no male nominee has ever been asked that).  So when they make the charge of bullying against her it seems to be based on only her actions, not on any bias they might be perceiving her with.

In Christopher Shea's Blog on the Boston Globe Site (Braniac), he's been discussing a book by Frederick Schauer, "Thinking Like a Lawyer," which questions the representation of the Supreme Court as an apolitical branch of government.

Shea quotes from Schauer's book:

"For some years now, political scientists have used sophisticated techniques of multiple regression to determine what really does influence case outcomes in the Supreme Court. Researchers have examined a range of factors and concluded that ideology, more than personal characteristics of the judge, legal variables of text and precedent, or anything else, is the leading predictor of Supreme Court outcomes."

As Shea goes on to note, if this is true, it also brings into question having an unelected third branch of government.

Generally my students see that advertisements are manipulative.  But also generally they resist the idea that these manipulations have any effect on them.  (To me this is a sign that it is effective propaganda--if they acknowledge it is working on them they'd be better able to resist it).  So, if I think my desires are "just the way things are"--that they represent the "real" me without influence from outside, then having those desire met becomes an expression of the "real" me.  (I'm reminded of a car commercial I saw this morning which was selling based on the idea of standing out from the crowd.)  I think that this belief helps perpetuate a consumer society, whereas if I don't think of my individuality as the origin of what is "real" and as completely separated from the social and the cultural--but always in a kind of relationship then I might be better able to change both.

Advertisements, by their nature are manipulative. So what? Their sole purpose is to influence you to the intent of the advertiser: buy my product/service, not brand x. Just as a lazy hunter starves, so does a firm with poor or ineffective advertising. What your students are expressing is their intellectual ability to see beyond the manipulation (Dare I say deception?) and make their own decision what to do.

I disagree when they say "these manipulations have any effect on them." All input to the brain has some measure of "effect." If I am oblivious to toothpaste and all my brain has been exposed to is brand x, then the chances are I may select brand x when I see it on the shelf in the grocery store.

What I don't get is how you then transitioned to your desires. If you mean your desire for air, food, water, then yes, your desires are just the way things are. But if you desire reading a good book as opposed to I prefer to writing the book, then we begin to see the difference in your real self vs my real self.

So pursuing your desire is an expression of the real you. Note: I pose the desire doesn't necessarily have to be met. Example: You found a book, but after reading it, you disliked it. Disliking the book is irrelevant - it is your demonstrated attraction to finding a good book to read is what displays the real you.  

About my students--one thing I'm trying to say, and this is not just about them, I'd include myself here as well, is that seeing the manipulation, being able to analyze it, is certainly a help, but it doesn't mean that one is not affected.  We might disagree here as to how strong the effect is because I think that sometimes even when it feels as if they clearly see the manipulation and are making their own decision, the decision is not coming from just them.  For instance--my resistance to some ads might have been fostered by my Dad having made fun of them.  So that's an influence running counter to the influence of the ads.  

I guess that seems kind of self-evident, that there are these formative influences, but what I'm saying about this "real" paradigm is that it helps foster the illusion that somehow my decisions are wholly independent of outside influence.  

And to add onto that point and bring in what I was saying about desire--first I'd distinguish between need and desire.  Our culture is very focussed on desire and actually presents desires as if they are needs (needs being hunger, thirst, etc.).  This takes place not only in advertising, but in other forms of story-telling--TV shows, movies, etc.  The message that a person can never be satisfied has to be reinforced to keep a consumer economy up and running.  So I'd argue that "pursuing my desire as an expression of the real me" is a part of a cultural message that serves to reinforce ongoing consumption--and the fact that people think of it as an expression of who they really are, rather than as a cultural message, is probably the main thing that makes it difficult to resist and change.

Good distinction between Needs and Desires. And I agree society does tend to instill the mindest that desires are in fact needs. (The sentences that follow are to be read with tongue in cheek) Want to be hot? Then you NEED the Victoria Secret push up bra. Everyone else is going to it, so if you don't, you'll be left home to wait by the phone on Saturday night.

And yes, we all are influenced in a variety of ways, not just advertising, I didn't mean to insinuate that.

"Pursuing your desire as an expression of the real you" While it may indeed be to reinforce the need for ongoing consumption (a separate issue), it is still a point of differentiation between you and someone else.

I’m gonna try sketching out this idea about the history of the concept of the inner/outer divide—fire away with questions or feel free to expand upon.  Note: references are mostly Foucault’s The Order of Things, Nancy Armstrong: Desire and Domestic Fiction.  Also note, this is in many ways a variation on my thoughts in the post about computer-mediated interaction--here.

I trace back this concept to the Enlightenment—and it’s useful to get an overview by contrasting the Mediaeval way of looking at how one knows things with the Enlightenment in order to see how the idea of depth became important.  The Mediaeval view of the world was that everything was related/connected in an allegorical or analogous way.  The father is to the family as the King is to the state as God is to the cosmos.  It’s as if you have all these different stories stacked on top of each other with correspondences between the elements that line up vertically.  And correspondences between things—though they might be difficult at some levels—could usually be read by most people through similarity.   So for instance—walnuts look like brains therefore eating walnuts must contribute to being smart.  Or thinking about gender—men and women were very similar beings (not at all the idea of opposite sexes that we have today).  What distinguished them were the organs of reproduction which were just seen as versions of each other—the man’s being exterior, the woman’s interior.  (They believed that too much exertion by women could make the organs pop out and turn women into men.)  Language was not seen as arbitrary but as having a relation of similarity to the thing it named.  And that is how sympathetic magic worked—names were powerful because they had a correspondence to the thing.  A word could stand in for the thing and so doing something to the word could affect the thing itself.  Similarly a piece of hair had a connection to the entire person such that something done to the hair would affect the person.

This world was a revealed world.  With the Enlightenment and the introduction of the interior/exterior—the meaning of things becomes hidden.  Instead of analogy or allegory as the dominant mode, you have plot—plot which ends in the revelation of mysteries.  A good illustration of this for all the Losties out there is that the Mediaeval view is like the theorist that keeps finding analogies between the religious, mythic, scientific stories (I realized while writing this that this is my dominant mode—I tend toward that Medieval view) versus the theorist that wants to uncover the mysteries.  The JJ Abrams TED video on the Magic Box kind of encapsulates that approach to narrative—the one that keeps needing to distract in order to keep the viewer from seeing the trick and will eventually reveal some big surprise at the end of Season 6 which hopefully ties it all together.

How this view affects our sense of who we are: a good starting point for that is Descartes.  His “I think therefore I am” begins with radical skepticism which doubts the existence of everything in the world except eventually the “I.”  So there’s a radical separation between the “I” as the only thing of which we can be sure—and everything else—which we can doubt (and which is seen as outside of ourselves—even including our own bodies—because the body is available only through sensory perception).  (That Mind/Body dualism has been discussed a lot in the Consciousness thread.)

At this period in time the “I” is certainly gendered as male.  What is external—and always in doubt, subject to artifice and fakery—or at the very least in need of investigation—is represented as female: from nature to the body.  Much later the other extreme—the unknown internal or unconscious also gets identified with the female in Freud’s accounts.  The accounts of his hysterical patients (who must of necessity be female ‘cause men can’t be hysterical)—their words explaining what happened to them (that they were victims of incest)--could not be accepted at face value.  They are part of that external world which the investigator must then probe to find out the truth—which Freud found to be the women’s own repressed desires (What do women really WANT!!). 

Effect on sense of self in relation to society and in relation to moral choices:  Rousseau’s idea of the social contract was that a society could only be free if composed of free individuals who voluntarily enter into the social contract in order to garner the benefits of living with others.  By free individuals Rousseau meant free of any kind of preexisting social, political or cultural grouping.  So Rousseau imagines a kind of fiction in which there is an “I’—an individual—who exists outside of society (who has no class, gender, political, ethnic…affiliations) and then enters into society voluntarily.  This is in part why Rousseau idealizes the natural man—the man outside of society.  However, the reality is that any human being raised outside of society never becomes capable of being social.  We are not discrete and individuated beings free of any connection (like the class we are born into) who then become subject to those connections by becoming social.  Rather—we are always connected beings.  But I think Rousseau’s conception is very much a part of how we think of ourselves—as individuals who would be free if not for society.  We don’t think of ourselves as composing society but rather as if society is this external force which is always keeping us from the freedom we would enjoy without it.

Adding in Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative—morality cannot be judged on any empirical basis but only by pure reason alone—reason as the Enlightenment’s idea of the most pure version of the “I” (because emotion seems tied to the body and so to external forces).  I think this is why intent becomes of such importance in our legal system and explains the appeal of things like hate crime legislation.

A bit of a tangent here—but it can’t be accidental that this coincides with the beginnings of capitalism.  For one thing—the way in which money becomes something transparent—that is not having a value in itself but only standing in for value--is parallel to what happens to words.  What modernists eventually called alienation—the sense that the objects out there in the world are completely separate from us (our inner selves), rather than a sense of connection from having made or crafted something and thus feeling it has the value of one’s own labor—that’s what capitalism creates and what Kant seems to name in describing the Noumenal (the thing in itself which we can never really know as it is) and the completely interior being of pure Reason.  I think it also describes the two main styles of the modern literary period—Realism and Stream of Consciousness.

Last bit—how this affects the romance narrative and gender:

In this structure what is seen as unattractive is what is obvious, external or showy.  I think this applies to both men and women.  The blustery macho man is not the romantic hero.  The romantic hero is the man with the hidden self, who has suffered some inner hurt or pain which must be found out and “cured” by love.  The romantic heroine is not the gaudy “loose” woman, but the woman of “natural” beauty who doesn’t realize her own loveliness.  Or even the outwardly plain woman: the one whose loveliness is more internal but requires the gaze of the proper hero to uncover it and give it value.

What is unacceptable in women is falseness or trickery--love cannot be about manipulation and manipulation becomes tied to that outward showiness (thus my references below to women who are seen as obvious in their attempt to be sexy).  The real qualities of women have to be of this most internal sort and discovered by the right man--if the woman is instead seen as "showy" or manipulative--she, like the aristocracy of old is rejected as having an obvious and external manipulative power.  (I think this ties into something I was just writing in response to a post DL made about a woman's self-description of her own anorexia.)  Attractiveness for women is on the one hand supposed to be all about the external--make-up and plastic surgery and dieting.  On the other hand--if all of this is obvious--the man looks tricked and weak.  Instead the man has to discover her "real" self ("Good Heaven's Miss Yakamoto, You're Beautiful!", She Blinded Me with Science).  See DL's description of "An Officer and a Gentleman"--"it's the revelation of her [the heroine's] 'true self' and the acceptance of this presentation by the man that determines the ultimate success or failure of the relationship.  So the woman must have a natural appearance, and she must (in the romance narrative) be shown to have internal qualities which transcend any external concerns.  And the man shows his "freedom" through choosing her (just as he freely enters the social contract free of external concerns).

Perhaps the most radical story in this regard is Jane Eyre in that the heroine is of a lower class (eventually in the story, actually destitute), plain in feature and Puritan in dress.  So the love of the wealthy Rochester for her must be for the “real” her.  The kind of avoidance of factions that Rousseau advocates in the social contract becomes part of the sexual contract.  Desire is not dictated by any kind of social concern—like wanting to wed for money or because the man is attracted to the woman’s outward beauty.  Desire seems to be untouched by society.  I think this explains why my students think that advertising doesn’t affect them (their desire untouched by advertising).  I think it also explains the over dependence on romance narratives and the nuclear family in our society—as if these things are our escape from society and it’s ills—as if the world of romance is part of this very internal and individual world set apart from society.

But, you know what…the personal is political, baby…

Something I was reading this morning in a somewhat different context got at part of what I'm trying to say about the identity of the person.  I thought maybe if I quote some of that it might offer a different starting point of discussion

The book is Mistaken Identity: The Mind-Brain Problem Reconsidered by Leslie Brothers.  She's a neuroscientist who's writing a critique of some of the recent neuroscience research.  The critique is based on the idea that the scientists are using a definition of mind based on popular beliefs which define mind in terms of individual brains and psychology.

Here are some points from the conclusion where she's outlining more of what she thinks "mind," or "person" is:

"One of the reasons philosophers have been stuck for so long in the mind-brain problem is that they tend to see the mental as a property of the individual--the mind is inside the person, so to speak."

She goes on to cite a different kind of philosophy than the one she describes there (and which might be associated with Descartes)--"ordinary language philosophy."

"Ordinary language philosophy takes seriously a dimension of life we usually ignore.  It is the dimension of social forms of life.  We can think of it as the medium that produces human beings by virtue of their participation in it.  They participate through adopting some subset of the myriad of specific social forms--modes of dress, forms of speech, objects arranged around them, activities carried out--available from the culture...The human individual doesn't really exist as a person until he or she take up and participates in forms of social life."

Somewhere in here, I keep expecting you to quote Morpheus from The Matrix when he said: "If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

I need to read Brothers because I don't fully grasp the point about "The human individual doesn't really exist as a person until he or she take up and participates in forms of social life."

That implies there are different forms of existence because a person can "exist" without engaging in forms of social life by choosing to remain a recluse. Engaging in forms of social life means choosing to interact with one's environment, more of a view held by Sartre: To do is to be. (heh, not that we need another philosopher brought into this discussion)

I happen to agree with the concept of: "the mental as a property of the individual--the mind is inside the person." It is only when one chooses to reveal their mind to another that it becomes exposed outside the person. And to be clear: my use of the word "exposed" is to be taken in the context of detectable/visible/evident/having been shown to exist, not as vulnerable.

This is my understanding of what that statement about personhood defined by participation in social life means.

I agree with you that a person can exist and yet remain a recluse.  It probably makes more sense to think of this in terms of what it is that makes someone a person in the first place.  So, for example, if one can imagine that reclusive scenario not after a person already exists--but from the moment the human being is born.  If one can imagine a hypothetical situation in which an infant was raised with every physical need met, but having no exposure to other human beings, to no form of social life, in other words an individual pre-existing the social (in Rousseau's sense this would be the natural man)--would this be a person?  Would that person have the ability to be conscious of self, to have a self?  Or is self-consciousness, self, mind, personhood, etc.  foundationally social rather than individual?  I'd argue that it is social.

That kind of relates to the second point too about mind and exposure to another.  But I was also reminded of this passage about exposure to others that has to do with ethics but is defining  self and subjectivity.  The passage describes a concept put forward by Adriana Caverro (in opposition to Nietsche):

"In her view, I am not, as it were, an interior subject, closed upon myself, solipsistic, posing questions of myself alone.  I exist in an important sense for you, and by virtue of you.  If I have lost the conditions of address, if I have no 'you' to address then I have lost 'myself.'  In her view, one can tell an autobiography only to an other, and one can reference an 'I' only in relation to a 'you': without the 'you' my own story becomes impossible."

(passage is from Giving an Account of Oneself by Judith Butler)

So maybe a simple way of presenting the problem with the internal/external divide using that same pronoun model--

radical internalism= an "I" which preexists the social--an "I" before there is any "we" (a lot of American political thought is grounded in this I think)

radical externalism= an "I" always absorbed into the "we" (Soviet communism tended to be rooted in this philosophy as is utilitarianism)

whereas what I think people are like is a process between I/you and I/we--without some stable, fixed "I" or self--rather one that is always in relationship.  And I think that would be true even of a recluse because the social/symbolic order the recluse was born into would still inform the dialogue in that person's head and that person's self-concept.

I'm frustrated with hypotheticals like "the infant raised with every physical need met, but having no exposure to other human beings" -- saying nothing personal against you, of course.  There's really no way for such a situation to ever exist ... which to me is kind of the point of the whole human condition.

Even if only to be born, we are genetically influenced by our mother and father, whose DNA has been impacted by the environment.  I kid you not - what your grandmother ate has an impact on your genetic code.  Think of the implications of that and the social choices involved it's simply mind blowing.  Even if the place where said infant was taken care of by robots... who designed those robots?  Who determined what the base necessities of that infant were?  People, people, people.   Humans are social creatures.  Period.  You can't cut that out to measure what we would be without it.  There is no real way to measure where a person begins and ends.

That's not to say that we're not "individual" in some sense.  I'm not taking this to the level of a political social order and condoning one point of view over another.   But from my viewpoint this internal/external divide is an illusion... merely a method we use to try and understand the world around us.  It's a process of becoming aware.  It ends when our consciousness ceases.  The choices we make in the meantime may primarily affect us, but they also have an impact on the whole human situation.  When we die these ripples do not cease just because our bodies do.

I agree with everything you said in regard to the human condition.  That illusion seems pervasive though to me and it is not generally perceived as an illusion.  For instance, when I was starting to describe mirror neurons to a friend of mine with a background in science, she interrupted me saying she was skeptical.  Her skepticism she based on a strong belief that we are completely alone inside our heads--unable to have the kind of connection the research seems to suggest.  She then dismissed the research as some kind of mystical fakery and refused to even consider the evidence.  

More generally, I think this illusion has a lot of detrimental effects.

Exactly.  When you look at the examples you've given in that way, these scenarios and narratives tell more about the fears being battled by the individual doing the judging, than they do about the things or people being evaluated.

It's the fear/control cycle at the epicenter of the problem.  Fear is the source of that "empty feeling", which opens the door for consumerist behavior - whether it apply to a romance or research into mirror neurons.

If we could see fear as something that is healthy to face head on (in situations where it's not life threatening)... as merely an indicator of a potential problem, but that is a harbinger for change that we can work to a positive outcome, perhaps that's the trick to turning things around.  We don't need to believe we're helpless and then turn to an empty consumerist solution, we actually have the power to make a difference.

The fear/control cycle and the illusion--they seem to support each other and make it difficult to get past all this to change.

Several things that I either heard, read about or talked about with someone yesterday were highlighting that difficulty to me.
I had to drive out to school to administer a writing exam and advise incoming first years on course selection.  On the way I heard this story on NPR about the way in which gun rights groups are creating fears that the Obama administration will be enacting strict gun control legislation.

Here's a quotation from a political ad cited in the report:

" "Remember candidate Barack Obama," a narrator says, "the guy who wasn't going to take our guns away?" The video then cuts to a clip of the president. "I will not take your shotgun away, I will not take your rifle away, I won't take your handgun away," Obama says. The narrator concludes by saying: "Well, guess what? Less than 100 days into his administration and President Obama appears ready to eradicate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans." "

The reality of the way congress and the President seem to be acting is in fact the very opposite--for instance the recent legislation affirming the right to carry in Nat'l Parks.

The illusion of powerlessness and the idea that the government will control gun owners is used to create fear (which is fueling gun sales) and disguises the fact that it's a propaganda technique--itself controlling.

Then at school I was talking to someone in the education department about writing and testing.  My school is following the general trend to do more and more "objective" testing as a way to hold schools accountable.  The education teacher I was talking to had a different reason for supporting testing.  She said that her students see the requirement that they write correctly as something that the Education faculty is imposing on them.  And they take it as a personal affront that such demands are being made.  Now this is kind of amazing given that she was talking about a set of students who are themselves on the road to being teachers.  But she said that our nursing department does not have this problem because they are constantly administering objective tests.  So writing well does not look like it's personal or a power play by faculty to students, but an objective measure.  Testing still doesn't seem like the answer to me, but I can see why it works--it says there's an absolute and unchanging value that applies to all.  That doesn't seem to me to solve the problem though--it only maintains the illusion in another form.

After my work at school was done I drove to a nearby town to take a walk.  Wound up sitting around waiting to get a back massage at one of those chair massage places and picked up "Ode Magazine."  Read an article titled "A call for guts" which was very much about the idea of confronting fears.  I'll quote some excerpts to give a sense of the main argument:

"Like a lot of us, I keep asking myself, How did we get into this mess? Since humans have innate needs and capacities for cooperation, empathy and fairness, which science now confirms, why does so much suffering and destruction continue? For many, the answer seems obvious: Humans just aren't good enough; we need to become better people; we need to overcome selfishness and evolve into more caring and cooperative creatures. I disagree. Since these positive qualities are hard-wired in virtually all of us, maybe what we really need more of is something else: backbone.

Have you ever considered we're too cooperative? Maybe we're hard-wired to follow others, even if we should say "no way." "

The author, Frances Moore Lappe, goes on to describe the kind of society that would encourage the kind of backbone she's talking about:

" "The key here is what I think of as "moral courage"to enforce consequences for those who hurt others. Groups "with few rules attract many exploitative people who quickly undermine cooperation,"says Rockenbach in the Times. "By contrast, communities that allow punishment, and in which power is distributed equally, are more likely to draw people who, even at their own cost, are willing to stand up to miscreants." "

I think that seems essentially on target except the part about having more rules in order to hold people accountable gives me pause.  My question is how to hold people accountable without setting up moral absolutes.  How does one hold people accountable without getting into what I describe below as "right justifies might"?

On the drive home--listening to news about protests in Iran and calls from those on the right, like John McCain, for Pres. Obama to speak more forcefully against the current administration and the outcome of the election.

Relating this back to the contrast between that older Mediaeval paradigm and the one we have today:  In the older paradigm might=right.  The person with the most power was thought to be divinely appointed.  The winner of a battle must have been right.  Trial by combat revealed who was speaking the truth.  Now we would see all of those as false.  And in fact we are more sympathetic to the underdog because we suspect the obvious show of power.  On the other hand, we believe that right justifies might--and sometimes I think that might make the battles even more bloody.  

Quoted on a TV show I was watching and seemed to fit, especially thinking about trying to find balance:

"Deliver me from the workers of iniquity, and save me from bloody men."

I'm only responding to this one piece of this topic, as the rest is pretty involved and I'm again not at leisure to immerse myself completely.

I think my biggest contention is that people have this concept that the mental/mind has to be revealed in order to be "public property" or detectable/visible. 

My first problem is that a person's mind is seen as property at all - even if it is to form a sense of security in that we "own" it somehow.   But setting that aside for a moment -

It's my perception that our mental state has a rather large impact on the external world whether we like it or not.  We all expose much more than perhaps we'd even choose to through our mannerisms and habits and the consequences of the choices that we make.   The consequences themselves are what is stereotyped and reacted to in our social world. 

Isn't it enough to be? ...or do we have to *own* something to feel like we have power in this world?  I think that's really a central issue here.  I don't think we'd feel the need to "own" our minds if we felt secure in the environment in which we lived.

For one, the second quotation mark where I was quoting from what DL said about "An Officer and a Gentleman"--so that should read:

"it's the revelation of her [the heroine's] 'true self' and the acceptance of this presentation by the man that determines the ultimate success or failure of the relationship."

One idea I forgot to include was that while the Mediaeval perspective tends to rest on inherent values which are revealed at the surface, the Enlightenment rests on classification.  Investigation into hidden depths is supposed to uncover difference which helps classify and so to reveal truth through separation rather than connection (analogy).  So for example, in the Middle Ages women are seen as a lesser version of man, after the Enlightenment women begin to be seen as man's opposite (Thomas Laquer's book Making Sex looks at the politics of that re-presentation.)

Both periods have hierarchies--there's a difference in how the hierarchies are perceived and utilized.  A good comparison there is the one Foucault makes in Discipline and Punish--between older forms of punishment which involved public displays of the monarch's power through extreme violence done to the body of the person being punished, and more modern forms of discipline using surveillance (like the panopticon prison).  In the first power is on display and is apparent.  By making it apparent though it can become more subject to criticism and the over use of such power can lead to revolution.  This is, in a way, analogous to what I was saying about obvious ways in which women in our culture use physical display--if it becomes too obvious, what it is becomes apparent and subject to criticism.

The more modern way in which power is manifest in our culture (though it can still be in that obvious way as well) is in surveillance, discipline & classification.  A category of people is classified as different than the "norm."  And then they judge themselves according to what that norm is supposed to be.  Or we all carry around ideas about "how things are" or what is "natural"--which we think of as internal and thus real (as opposed to imposed labels).  Again coming back to my students--they will very quickly chime in with condemnations of things like the objectification of women in advertising, but they steadfastly believe in something like the idea that men are naturally prone to seek out multiple sexual partners but women are naturally prone to seek out one.  And of course they can point to their Human Sexuality textbook for back-up.  But this kind of classification of difference they also see as part of themselves, defining who they are and who their friends are and how they behave.  That is, classification (in this case of gender) based on difference gives them their internal sense of self--their identity.  And what they don't see is the way in which the classification system itself assumes the differences it then proves.  And that those classifications have political/cultural implications. 

So then discussion of how this male/female difference in relation to sexuality doesn't seem to make sense, or showing the fallacies behind the socio-biology, or pointing out how coneeeeeniant it is that scientific evidence backs up a cultural norm (or suggesting that researchers might have a cultural bias in their interpretations)--they are very resistant to all of those arguments because this classification system is part of the lens through which they see the world and defines their inner selves (they think) and is not a part of the history or culture in which they live.

Not ideas per se--but just to clarify with references--this main Mediaeval/Enlightenment contrast is coming from Foucault's The Order of Things while some of the gender stuff like the relation of the social to sexual contract or the importance of Jane Eyre as a text is from Armstrong.

I agree as well. Without divulging details about my family, I have come to the belief that outer beauty is actually a curse - especially for young girls. It focuses on how things look vs how they are. (and if it's not clear, then let me be clear that I stand for how things "are"). Emphasis on outer beauty takes away from the quality of the individual's personality, intelligence, integrity, principles, etc. Take any Victoria's Secret TV commercial and you know what I mean. The influence of the media, Hollywood and eventually society (by way of peer pressure) puts pressure on women in our society to look like "anatomically impossible" Barbie. Tell me, how else can a show like Nip/Tuck do so well on TV?

In another thread I suggested the reading of "How to Father a Succesful Daughter" by Nicky Marone (it's in the "Feminism and Other Isms" thread but I don't know how to link) that mandates a parent speak up when examples like this surface. Susan Boyle should be celebrated for her talent and her quality as a human being. Her appearance should be a non-issue (the operative words being "should be")

I pose the origination of this phenomenon is older than we may realize. A clue is available to us by studying nature. The mating ritual of the peacock is a perfect example of flashing beauty to attract a mate.

In evolution terms, humans use physical appearance as the initial measuring stick for determing attraction. A force of nature we cannot escape. It is primordal. Man perverted it from there to make it the problem it is today. And I cannot down-play the monumental impact the Church had on devaluing the female gender at the beginning of Catholicism.

Therefore, what is real: Susan Boyle. What is not real: Pamela Anderson. But who would I rather watch? Sela Ward because she is talented, compassionate, principled, intelligent and beautiful.  

... thought I'd mention this is a very interesting subject.  I wish I had the time to join in and address some of the issues being discussed.

Yeah, jump in DL, because Jaz is probably frustrated trying to pound this concept into my thick skull  ;-)

If y'all can't tell, I'm particularly sensitive to this subject because of the influence it has on my daughter.

A few years ago, she asked me: "Dad, what do girls have to do to impress guys?"

That question was/is SO unnerving to me on so many different levels. That it was even an issue at her age was concerning. Cable TV, modern music lyrics, celebrity behaviour, accelerated development all combine into one complicated cauldron for parents today. She cannot comprehend a parent telling her that's not what she should care about. What "should" matter to her (and here comes a father's desire to convey principles) is her quality as a human being. Her ability to develope virtues, not a belief that botox holds the key to happiness.

Sorry Jaz, you probably didn't mean to make this about parenting, but in my mind that's where it begins and only gains global exposure when stories like Boyle's come along.

I want (and shouldn't we all want this?) people to feel secure in their inner self. That what they look like does NOT define them. Yes, their outer appearance is de facto, them, but it is not the totality of their existence.

In the original post, you used the word "frumpy."  Where does such a word come from - and why does it even matter?

So I'd like to retract my use of the word "real" to describe someone's inner self and say that I would like for society to stop this focus on outer appearance and focus on what matters.

We take this concept and unwittingly apply it to our relationships and inevitably our own mental health.  
Our self worth becomes dependent upon our comparisons of ourselves to the "other".

At the heart of all of this is our attachment to the feelings that we covet.  This mess is what happens when emotions, unquestioned, are allowed to define our choices in a path to an unmeasurable, elusive goal.
When reality doesn't fit in with what we inevitably value or wish for, we look for novel things to distract us from feeling our own fears: 

Instead of questioning our consumeristic approach we entrench ourselves into a favored social camp and attack that which doesn't fit in within our social comfort zone.  It's easier to fill ourselves with disgust than it is to overcome the fear of facing what we might find if we look into the void.  This loathing can then either be turned upon oneself - or upon another class of people.

As a result "Consumers have a growing sense of emptiness" which from my perception, through applying this to our self worth and sexuality results in an overall destruction of self esteem... which leads to the destruction of any kind of healthy relationship.

This sense of emptiness is an innate desire for a connection.  What we need to do is to realize that if we look into that void we may just find ourselves.  We're not really alone if we have a self identity to appreciate.
The first step out of this abyss is to take back responsibility for our own self image and self esteem.  Teach our sons and daughters that their worth does not come from what everybody else thinks of them.
It's my opinion that finding particular social relationships should not be a life goal.  If you value logic as much as you value your emotional response to certain situational stimuli, you may find yourself coming to the conclusion that perhaps you're not willing to pay the price for what it is you're asking.

I muddle around with these questions...

Where does our idea of our self come from?  

Is self-esteem, self generated?

What about people who say they are doing something to change their appearance for themselves?

Or those who (to me) seem to have distorted self-images (for instance, people who weigh less than I do and yet see themselves as "fat")? [This is a larger issue--but I'm gonna switch into using weight as the example--well, for one thing, it does seem to be one of the big "self-worth" barometers in this culture.]

How come I don't see myself as fat, or even overweight (where did that self-image come from)?  And yet according to an "objective" measure (BMI) I'm at the high end of "overweight"? 

Maybe the problem is categorizing at all--of having an "identity."  I'm thinking here of identity as some combination of adjectives and nouns: "I'm pretty/plain."  "I'm heavy/thin."  "I'm male/female."  I'm old/middle-aged/young."  "I'm white/black/Asian/Latino-a/Native American..."  Identity seems to rest on comparison to me--on distinguishing oneself from an "other."  And consumerism plays on exaggerations of identities I think--especially around gender and age--but I think the problem might go further back to me.  Well for instance, the whole way that the enlightenment and empiricism really made categorizing more important in the scientific method.  Or even the way in which civil rights rest on identities.

Not that one can do without identity at all--it just seems over exaggerated in lots of ways to me.  It almost makes me think of "self" too much.  Like getting back to using weight as an example--as soon as I start trying to identify what I am as far as weight, I'm starting to compare.  Is it the comparison that's the problem (not sure)?  If I think more in terms of activity--like I want to be able to do "X" -- that seems to help for me.  Heh, like, OK I'm bangin' this drum in a squat position for an hour and workin' up a great sweat--it feels good

My Sunday paper has a blog about word meanings and one sectiono f it last week described an interesting change in the definition/use of the word "consumerism."  I'll just quote the section here (author is Jan Freeman):

"BUYER’S MARKET: Frank Biondi of Pittsburgh notes that though dictionaries still list the original definition of consumerism - “consumer protection” or “actions to secure the rights of consumers” - today we use the word mainly with its second meaning, “materialism, or obsessive consumption.” He wants to know: “Who stole its proud heritage?”

In this article Rushkoff analyzes the way in which marketing makes counter-moves to the growing skepticism of consumers.  The Sprite ads that market by telling an anti-marketing story, for example.  At the conclusion of the article he talks about how marketing has changed from the 50s and 60s to today--playing into that need for meaning and identity which marketing itself has undercut.

"The back-to-basics authenticity of such advertisements capitalizes on a growing sense that we are no longer in touch with who we really are. In the past, advertisers worked to generate this sense of disconnection. In the 1950s and 1960s, a marketer would present an image, personality, or story with which we were meant to identify, and then stretch that image in order to make us feel unworthy, to give us something to aspire to: The girl in the hair-color advertisement looks just like me--when I was twenty years younger and five shades less gray; the woman in the commercial has a dirty kitchen and noisy children just like me...but she is confident enough in her rug cleaner to throw a dinner party for her husband's business partners that night. The viewer identified with the character, only to be made to feel unworthy by comparison.

Today, however, a deep sense of disconnection and unworthiness is just the starting point for the detached viewer. As a result, the opposite effect takes place: We welcome the opportunity to let down our guard, even for a moment. Having grown to resent all the striving toward the ideals represented in commercials, we yearn to get off the treadmill of yearning altogether. We yearn not to yearn--to be still and content. To just be.

The newest approach to the antiyearning urge capitalizes on these feelings. The Calvin Klein CK Be perfume advertisements offer the media-fatigued sophisticate a chance to relax and literally "just be." Uniquely beautiful and detached-looking young people stare confidently into the lens. Beneath them are captions like "Be hot. Be cool. Just be." The slogans in companion ads all stress that people should have the ability to express their individuality and be who they really are. "CK Be fragrance is about who you are...it's about the freedom to express your individuality...it's about the freedom to be yourself." "

Coercion: Why We Listen to What They Say

I was reminded of a lot of different things as I was thinking about some of these ideas.  I'm mostly going to link to where I've either read or seen information that I was reminded of with a brief description and that way I thought people can follow-up any of the links that seem of interest. 

Documentary on consumption & kids (first part of 7)

A friend commented on the trailer for this documentary that she thinks the biggest problem with how we are raising children is that the emphasis is on protection rather than education.  I think what she said could relate to what DL says about fear--we are using consumption as part of this protective process but it doesn't interrupt the cycle.  The fear and need for protection can't be overcome with more stuff.

If we're so rich, why aren't we happy?

This follows the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi--he has this distinction which might help explain some of the way in which marketing and consumerism works on us.  We have survival needs for things like food and drink.  Satisfying those needs Csikszentmihalyi describes as pleasure.  But then marketing works by applying that same drive for survival to all kinds of other things which have nothing to do with survival.  And this also seems to me to connect to what DL said about confronting fears that aren't life-threatening.  We've been trained to be fearful about things which aren't at all life threatening.

TED video: Dan Gilbert talks about why we are happy

Gilbert begin by talking about the role of the pre-frontal cortex in making human beings speculators.  But then this fools us in regard to happiness--and is again something marketing plays on.  We can imagine and plan for the future, but then it is a false assumption to believe that we can control what happens in the future.  Marketing plays on that assumption by promoting the idea that our happiness is in the future and is something we can plan/control for by controlling an objectified world (and thus we objectify people too).  Instead Gilbert points out that we synthesize happiness in the present--we create our own happiness in the present moment.

The "I" or ego as in control

The executive function gives us the ability to change ourselves, but this does not give us other kinds of control.  Our dominant mythology has been for some time focussed on the "I"--really the novel is in many ways a kind of story form that tends to promote that sense of an "I" struggling for control over and against an external social world.  And it's also promoted by the whole Enlightenment philosophy--Mathieu Ricard, for instance in one of the videos below--describes Kant as saying that happiness is the fulfillment of our desires.

Mathieu Ricard on Happiness several links:

His book "Happiness"--brief main idea

Video: Change Your Mind/Change Your Brain

That video's part of a series that I think was recording a symposium on Happiness--there's also one by Jon Kabat-Zinn there that I like.  A couple things Ricard says in that video--happiness is not an accumulation of pleasant feelings; that notion of happiness leads to a preoccupation with self; but in that kind of notion something will always be missing--desire will always be maintained--one never reaches satisfaction.  So in fact one never becomes happy using that strategy.

An Ode Magazine description of Ricard as the World's Happiest Man

Mindfulness--to me this is where that sense of connection can be found.  Ricard, Zinn, and Gilbert (in describing synthesized happiness) are, I think describing something along the lines of mindfulness--though I think the term is most associated with Zinn.

Here's the video in which Zinn describes mindfulness meditation.  There's also an essay in that same Ode magaine by him describing how mindfulness relates to time.  And this is the book of his that I like using a lot for myself: Wherever You Go, There You Are.

I see a lot of what you're describing above as in accord with what I'm trying to say.  To me the inner/external divide though--while it has a huge impact on us through that consumerist mindset--I also see affecting things like our view of science and our relation to nature/the environment, our views of gender, ideas about politics, freedom, individual rights, etc.  I think why it makes sense to me to look at that framework, rather than beginning with consumption might be more clear if I just talk about the way I see consumerism fitting in with what I was trying to talk about in going over that longer historical background.

I think in a production economy, the objects we produce are meaningful and connected to us.  In a consumer economy they aren’t.  So the void you’re describing—in the context of consumerism—it’s that sense of disconnection to things that we buy, but haven’t made.  Our labor and the object are distanced from each other.  And then advertising turns our own bodies into objects.

When I’ve had discussions about consumer habits with my students they talk about window shopping or shopping on the internet—often when they feel depressed or lonely.  The thing that they imagine buying seems to offer a future time when their desire is fulfilled and they no longer feel that way.  But of course when they have acquired something it is no longer that ideal longed for object and they have to go in search of something new.  You’re describing much the same thing in talking about that need for novelty.

After teaching the section on consumerism, I do this section on relationships, marriage, romance—and there seems like a clear correlation between this kind of loneliness>>longing>>acquiring>>dissatisfaction chain that the students are describing about shopping that also describes relationships.  The contrast between the two stats—the one in which 94% of people in their twenties expect to marry their soul mate and yet the divorce rate is over 50% speaks to that I think. 

So I think the flip side of this over idealization of objects (and other people in romantic relationships) is that once they are acquired they lose value.  And so the flip side of consumption and materialism to me and the thing that keeps the “desire” going such that there’s never a sense of satisfaction is to devalue the external, the objects, the body—to find them “fake” or “disgusting.”  I see this pretty clearly in my students who—if I ask them about whether consumerism, or materialism, or advertising are good things—are pretty universal in declaring that no—these are not the “real” things we should want.  We should want connection with family, friends, significant others.  Yet giving voice to this value doesn’t seem to help them get out of that chain I was describing above.  This makes me wonder if the devaluing of the material is built into that chain as dissatisfaction/disgust.  The person buys, consumes, finds their consumption disgusting and is dissatisfied with themselves, then needs to buy something else. 

OK—bringing in rationality and science, because I think rationality gets opposed to desire in a lot of cultural representation.  I think some of the recent science cited on the Consciousness thread may suggest that rationality and emotion are actually part of the same choice mechanism, but I think it gets represented as an opposition to actually maintain desire in the way I was describing above.  That is by rationality opposing the expression of desire, desire is always deferred and thus maintained.

I see rationality as being part of the same paradigm as consumerism or consumption.  Just as consumerism tries to mend that void by buying things, rationality/science tries to mend the void by knowing things.  And they share that same kind of comparison technique which you were describing above.  There is a cultural assumption though that  rationality is more objective and therefore of greater value and there are clear gender associations with the split.  So for instance in “Dracula”—the evil woman is the emotive and consuming woman, Lucy—the one who is desired by three men in the novel and is clearly shown to have “appetites.”  (She’s the consumer.) The good woman is Mina because she has a “man’s brain”—that is she is extremely rational and so her rationality keeps her appetites in check. (Much more the scientist.)

Or to give a real rather than fictive example—when male scientists investigated hysteria in women—their own sexual interests in conducting those investigations were elided by the fact that it was a completely rational pursuit, and it’s the women’s emotiveness which is blamed—it requires that rational investigation.

So in your last statement about valuing logic as much as emotion I think I’m in agreement with the intent of what you are saying—which to me is let’s try and find a way to interrupt the process of this chain.  I think though that often this logic/emotion interplay is used to prolong desire, prolong that chain I was describing above with logic used as the prohibition.

Maybe a different way of looking at this would be to say that if there really is no inner/outer divide, if I’m not isolated/alienated from the external world which I see as a collection of meaningless objects, or from my own body, or from other people (which in that Cartesian frame I somehow always doubt even the existence of), then there really is no void.  To me this is what that brain research like the existence of mirror neurons conveys—a kind of inherent connectedness rather than separation.   And a kind of awareness of self in the moment which maybe is more of that Buddhist idea of loss of self.  Or what loss of self means is that self is not seen as opposed to not-self—there’s an ongoing self-other flow rather than a static identification or identity.  

Does that make sense?  I realize I got a bit abstract there especially toward the end.

I'd guess that we are in accord on quite a bit.  But just to be clear, I was not really responding to you or your posts directly, as I have to only take short reading breaks at the place where I work.  I'm simply not able to make it through your posts as they are quite involved (including this last one).

I posted my response to what I'd read and copied a couple of days ago and pieced together throughout the past few days.  That's really the only way I can manage to post anything.  I don't have access to computer outside of my job, so it's difficult for me to do much else.

Your examples to me seem to be conversations about the details which I haven't really gotten to yet in my train of thought.

I understood that your post was your take on the internal/external divide and not a response to me or to my posts directly.  And to clarify my response--when I read someone's ideas here and respond to them as I did to yours above--I think of it as if I were reading something elsewhere (like that book by Leslie Brothers that I cited above), but having an opportunity I wouldn't have with the author of a book generally--that is to enter into a dialogue about how what I'm thinking and what the other person is thinking might or might not fit together--and then to reformulate what I'm thinking/writing about based on that dialogue.  And also though I was responding to your idea about consumerism, I'd like to hear anything anyone else has to say either on what you posted or what I said in response.

I hear what you're saying about the involved quality of my posts--On this particular subject in particular, I'm reflecting on past work of mine and thinking about a current project and I may be in a position where I'm clear about what I'm trying to say and I've got all this information that I've been accumulating, but I'm overloading with data in support of my point and need to simplify.  I'll try to respond in more manageable chunks.  I do really appreciate your feedback and everyone else's--particularly in regard to being difficult to follow as that seems to me to indicate that there's stuff to work on, on my end, as far as presentation.

But I also don't want to put any demands on anyone's time--this is part of my work I realize, not other people's.  As I said, any feedback is appreciated--including anthing about the conversations in regard to details--but when and if people can get to it.

Stip, I'm completely sympathetic to what you're saying.  And yeah--everything you cited there is, I think, part of that message that girls get--to define themselves according to what the media tells them guys want.  

I'm not sure this would be appropriate or not to show your daughter (I don't know what age she is)--but there are those Jeanne Kirkpatrick videos called "Killing Us Softly" about advertising's representations of women.  I linked one there but there's a whole series of them.  I also think about that series "Impossibly Beautiful."  I do think it's important to be aware of those messages and point them out to both sons and daughters.  (And to be aware of them ourselves--aside from being parents.)

Hmmm, I'm trying to write up a reply and the difficultyis making me realize how complex an issue this is.  Let me start by saying where I clearly agree with you--which is that women in our society do have inordinate pressure on them to look a particular way.

Otherwise--I think we may be misunderstanding each other.  I didn't mean to say that how things look is false, and how they "are" is what lies beneath the surface in intelligence, principles, etc--that what is in the depths is the more real.  In fact I'm saying that very contrast between false surface and real depth is a concept (rooted in the enlightenment, btw, but that's a tangent) which puts us on the wrong track.  It puts us on the wrong track as far as female appearance/reality in a couple ways (off the top of my head):

1) Someone who is more obvious in their artifice--big long fake eyelashes like Tammy Faye Baker for instance--become easy targets.  Beauty is supposed to be "natural"--that is, it is supposed to look effortless which of course requires a lot of effort.

2) In particular for women--the reason why artifice is so easily condemned is that the whole purpose of the effort of beauty is to acquire a man.  Women have to get men without looking obvious while doing it.  To be obvious while doing it exposes the whole system and shows it's underpinning in unequal distribution of power.  So it has to look "natural"--men are attracted to women, not because the women need the men to be attracted to them (because they are socially-culturally-financially-politically in a lower position), but because the women "deserve" that attraction because of their wit, charm, intelligence, etc.--their "real" qualities as opposed to those superficial scheming types (like every rejected female in every romance fiction every written).  That is essentially the story of every Jane Austen novel and most of the romance chick-lit films out there.

I'm not saying that what should be attractive then is artifice or that personality shouldn't be a part of what makes someone attractive.  Rather, I'm saying this internal/external divide--where the external is always false and seems socially imposed and the internal is the true--the real us--that's a false divide.  And the falseness of that divide perpetuates a culture that markets by appearance (esp. female appearance) but convinces us that our real self is the one beneath the surface.  It keeps us in stasis 'cause then we think all we have to do is to reject scapegoat figures (like Pamela Sue Anderson, or Tammy Faye Baker) in order to be free of that false and artificial marketting when in fact our rejection of and scapegoating of them is part of the same maketting which convinces women that they're supposed to look like Barbie.

When you contrasted Anderson with Boyle, I took it you were distinctly drawing attention to "outer beauty" vs what lies beneath. When you say that contrast puts us on the wrong track, that's where you lose me.

I understand your point about people like Tammy Faye Baker becoming targets (and for that matter, how is she any more obvious about her artifice than Anderson who gets more mileage out of her cleavage than possibly any female on the planet? But as long as she can jiggle, she's got a place in the spolight.) But becoming a target isn't the issue, its this facade, this split personality that is the issue.

I disagree with you (in principle, not reality because I know that what you say is indeed what happens in real life) that the whole purpose of the effort of beauty is to acquire a man. That whole logic roils my stomach because it goes hand in hand with the playacting (saying/acting what the man wants to hear, whether it's really who she is) that only misleads the male into a false relationship (didn't we already debate this over at Lies We Tell?). We just watched "He's Just Not That Into You" which is a great piece on this particular farce.

What I don't get is your stance that the internal/external divide is a false divide. I see it as a real one. The unwillingness (lack of courage?) to showcase "what lies beneath" is what perpetuates the culture that markets by appearance. Scapegoating the Anderson's of the world does not convince women that they have to look like Barbie. Rather, it is in direct opposition to that. That whole argument seems to contradict itself.

Scapegoating and then continuing to believe what lies beneath is your real self is the continuance of the deception and if that's what you meant, then I agree with you. If that's the case, it essentially becomes similar to The Crucible concept: point fingers at others to deflect attention from yourself.

And for argument's sake, can we stop discussing Pamela Sue Anderson? And forget Tyra. If you mention Janice Dickenson, I'm leaving this website. How about the heat Jennifer Love Hewitt took because of her supposed "weight issue" ??