Fiske's article reminded me of Scott's "Weapons of the Weak". This realization occurred when Fiske mentioned that weak individuals make do with what they have in order to resist dominant norms. In Fiske's article, the tool wives use is the husband's money. Although I understand the power buying items confers onto women, i.e. by softening men through guilt when they are berated for spending and placing them in the right when the men realize that her purchase was necessary, I could not help but think this still places women in a subjugated position. This idea of using the husband's money implies that women cannot earn and are dependent on the husband for income. Additionally, consumerism as power becomes a problem because it feeds into capitalism, the same structure that holds the nuclear family as the functional unit in American society and places women in the role of homemaker and housewife, according to American culture, which decreases their overall freedom and power.
Jordan's article pointed out the importance of the short-lived carnivals. The ephemeral made the carnival events an all-or-nothing event that prompted people to act out in non-violent ways and to expose the cracks in authority. The spectacle that these carnivals produce makes delivering messages to the masses more palatable due to its fun. This is similar to the flash mobs in India to promote and destigmatize same-sex relationships. However, I feel like these random, ephemeral acts are susceptible to being co-opted by mainstream media. I've seen these kinds of revolutions prominent in film and television which diminishes the resistive power these events have. It becomes a classic case of yesterday's rebellion that becomes today's pop-culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment