#dartmouth college
(Whenever I ask “What is love” someone always responds by referencing the song. And it irritates me. So please don’t.)
One of the lovely things this class has tried to do is get us to examine our own and others ideas about love, sex, and intimacy and challenge us to recognize that there are many different viable scripts for love. To me, love is often a choice: a conscious decision made once or continuously to behave in a certain manner to someone. A connection built up over time. This term though, I discovered that love also really is an emotion.
I had rejected the idea of love as an emotion because when most people use the term “love” as an emotional verb, they often refer to what I call the “superficial” fluff of initial attraction. Passion is important to a relationship. So is attraction. But the “googoo-gaga I’m so crazy about this person” crush that fangirls get over popstar icons is not love. Neither is the over-the-top, shallow portrayal by most love songs that are popular are the radio today (notable exceptions being “All of Me” by John Legend, “True Love” by P!nk, “I Choose You” by Sara Bareilles - “Marry You” by Bruno Mars, “Love Song” by Taylor Swift, etc. are awful portrayals of ‘real love.’).
The first person who “loved me” didn’t tell me so until two years after the fact, because he had decided for himself that the relationship could never work (we were friends at the time). The second person is now my fiancé.
I’ve said “I love you” to friends, family, and of course, to my significant other, but most of the time, it’s been motivated not by the moment but more the lasting relationship, in the sense that if my best friend does something for me, I might say “I love you” but it’s not because of what she just did, but more because it’s one in a series of loving gestures.
Recently though, there have been times with my fiancé where I just say, “I love you” because that’s the only word that really describes how I'm feeling. And I’d never experienced that before. I’m happy, but it’s not just happy. It’s not just contentment. It’s a feeling of, “I’m so happy that I get to spend the rest of my life with you, this moment is so perfect I wish I could just freeze it, but I don’t need to because something about this, the two of us, just feels so right. A lot of people I’ve asked about "how do you know when you’ve met 'the One’” frequently answer, “you just know.” “It’s something you’ll know when you know.” And I’ve always thought that was the most bogus answer ever. It doesn’t say anything! But now… I don’t know… I really do feel like it’s something you have to experience. But for me, this really is the definition of love - at least, as an emotion. Certainly I still retain all my other ideas & ideals about love, but this feeling, that I think is innate and natural and universal, I really do believe this is love. And it’s really exciting for me to see that.
Because if this is what love feels like, this intimate, deep connection with another individual, then it really can’t be bound by gender or number of times, because you don’t stop feeling sad or happy just because you think you should, it doesn’t stop being happy or sad because things change. In that moment, when you feel this strange union of souls, when you look at the other person and the only words in our American English language that can describe it is “I love you” then that is love. And for me, it answers the question of “can you feel love multiple times” because if love is that emotion, then obviously, yes you can.
And maybe this isn’t “love” and this is only “my definition” but given what people have said across many cultures and stories, I think I have fairly good corroboration.
It’s just funny, because this has been an unanswered question for so long, but for me, this term, I’ve finally found my answer. And that is pretty neat. =)
It’s always so interesting seeing people’s reactions in class - almost as interesting as the ideas we’re studying. Personally, I don’t particularly agree with the idea of polyamory and I think the logic behind it is very interesting. Again, I think that its presence as a “deviant” social convention forces those involved in it to be particularly thoughtful and intentional in their construction of the “system” of polyamorous relationships. However, as with BDSM relationships, I think the benefits of polyamorous relationships should be available in all relationships; it’s just that both relationships have set-ups that make particular types of edgework more necessary, and there are many types of edgework that are very beneficial to both individuals and relationships but because most folks don’t appreciate going out of their comfort zone, they will never voluntarily engage in those types of engagement (which is really self-development).
That said, I do want to give a defense of monogamous relationships as a response to “Polyamory or Polyagony” because I think it’s important to contend with the ideas at an argumentative-logic level, rather than an instinctive cultural reactive level. Polyamory, polygamy, and polyandry all have purposes in fulfilling specific needs that are largely unmet by many “normative” relationship styles. Shared physical and emotional resources can be really helpful to individuals’ wellbeing. The two women in the polygamous relationship clearly found each other a major asset, emotionally and relationally. And, as mentioned in class, pragmatically, having two women engaged in housework and childcare lessens the load by a lot. Similarly, if some individuals have large sex drives or emotional needs that are not fulfilled by their primary partner, it can be incredibly difficult and unfulfilling in a monogamous relationship if the two are not willing to work it out.
However, the argument for polyamory seems to hang a lot on the idea of self-development and self-fulfillment, even as being in a polyamorous relationship requires a lot of “selflessness” at times. The focus of the articles has been on the issue of jealousy, which is portrayed as almost a goal of polyamory: to eradicate jealousy within relationships and replace it with compersion. Whether this arises because jealousy is the biggest threat to a polyamorous relationship or because polyamorous individuals see jealousy as an interpersonal and relational flaw of monogamy for which polyamory is the “cure” remains to be seen.
Deri goes so far as to distinguish fait accompli jealousy and envy as two different emotions and describes jealousy as having more personal roots, coming out of insecurity and fear of the relationship being threatened. I both agree and disagree with this interpretation. While I do think jealousy may come from the feeling that a relationship is threatened, I don’t think it has to come from insecurity. I think it can come out of an idea of agreement and trespass in terms of valuing a relationship. Even if I feel secure in my relationship, there are moments when I am jealous for my significant other’s time, not because I feel threatened necessarily, but simply because, “I really wish you were here right now, I miss you.” Sometimes he’s just doing homework. Do I feel threatened by his being a student? Maybe? That’s certainly possible. But I think it can also come out just wanting more - and maybe that’s selfish, but I think the heart wants what the heart wants, and we all have desires. Rather than rerouting our desires, I think it’s better to be upfront about them and contend with them. So I agree that we should certainly deal with jealousy, but I disagree with the model that it has to come from a fear of rejection or inadequacy.
The primary hinge of polyamory comes from their disconnection of love and exclusivity, which, honestly, I think is an arbitrary decision. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but I don’t think you can argue that one is better or worse: it’s a decision to define love a different way, and it’s usually motivated by some desire that one wants to fulfill.
Same thing with monogamy: I believe love is exclusive because I need, I desire a degree of exclusive romantic attention, and so that is part of my definition of love. They’re really just two different, rather arbitrary definitions to fulfill different purposes. Monogamy happens to align with the things I prioritize in a relationship.
Certainly there are many frustrations and difficulties of monogamous relationships - that cannot be denied. Maintaining a successful relationship takes a considerable amount of effort, which not everyone commits to or understands the necessity of. “Alternate” models of love often are created, not just to “combat” institutional binds or inequalities but also as remedies for some traditional inequities and dilemmas - but I think the solutions they offer are just as viable within traditional relationships as outside, and often times, because they require more attention in a “normal” relationship, are actually better for an individual’s self-development as a human being if and only if people are WILLING to invest the time and effort it takes. Which, considering honestly it will often make you a better person who is better at LIFE in general, I’m always shocked at the resistance to intentional living. But, that might just be me…
Both because this came up in our discussions, and because I have probably thought about and discussed this more than most people (I am very lucky to have a wonderful fiance who will talk about just about anything with me, regardless of how strange/awkward/out-of-the-blue it would be for most people), I wanted to discuss and explain the idea a little bit more thoroughly. Theoriginal article - which is a Christian blogger interviewing a pastor who “supports” BD/s - does a really good job of capturing the two sides of the coin. Certainly there are many divided views on the topic, as there are in most religions because it’s hard for most people to agree on anything, and even agreeing to the fundamental tenets of Christianity is… well… patchy, especially depending whom you ask(though all with good intentions, generally).
Again, neither side encapsulates all views, but it is a great intro because the same emphasis is placed on sane, safe, & consensual. There is also a large emphasis on interpersonal respect and trust within the relationship. Indeed, a lot of the explanation of the basics I think were mostly to relieve some of the misconceptions people have with BDSM in general. I don’t know that they quite have the same idea of SM as expressed in Newmahr’s research, but since the question came up because of 50 Shades of Gray, I’d say much progress has been made. And I think one of the most important points is again, acknowledging that there are personal degrees of comfort. The comparison to spicy food is a really useful one. I can’t stand spicy food, others find food bland without it. And there’s never any pressure or need to change that. I feel like we tend to assume that most people are “hardcore” but the “soft stuff” is probably much more normal than most people assume. Anyone who’s ever asked for rough sex, or “pretended” to be elusive during sex or whatever has experienced really the far side of soft BDSM. Anyone who’s ever wanted to “be taken” or whatever - that totally counts! That desire of wanting to be what we might call “desperately desired"—
Basically, anyone who’s sung "I Want You to Want Me” by Cheap Trick and agreed with the sentiment of the lyrics - yes, you. You’ve experienced the base-level idea of D/s - the “thrill” of it.
It’s certainly not the only motivation, nor is it necessarily the main one, but it is a valid one and one that people experience - they really feel “wanted” in a way that goes beyond a girl dressing up and having guys drool at her, or a guy walking in and all the ladies turn to look or whatever your fantasy may be.
The Christian “brand” of BDSM tends to be more about trust and acceptance than anything else. Yes, there is definitely the sexual component and making sex exciting and fun - you know, when Cosmo’s tips just aren’t enough - but I think the most prominent form of BDSM is actually something called CDD: Christian Domestic Discipline. For those of you who aren’t going to bother opening the link, I’ll post the most significant part here (though honestly, their explanation page I think, is very well-written, straightforward, unapologetic, and sticks to their principles):
He is to be the head of the home. She is to be the heart of the home.
He is not a dictator. She is not a doormat.
He is not an overbearing Lord of the Estate, seeking to trample over his family. She is not some weak-minded lass, needing to be molly-coddled, or seeking to get straightened around.
He has the responsibility for leading his family and is accountable before God for their well-being and development. He has the authority to spank his wife for disciplinary reasons, but in real CDD marriages, this authority is taken quite seriously and usually happens rarely. Most CDD marriages do use spanking, generally for serious offences, such as the “Four D’s” (Disobedience, Disrespect, Dishonesty, or Dangerous [as in dangerous choices… reckless driving, disobeying doctor’s orders, etc]). Some CDD marriages also use non-corporal disciplines, such as writing lines, or the temporary forfeiture of a favourite privilege. Again, every marriage is unique, and CDD is much more than just corporal punishment or spanking.
CDD is not a “magic pill”, and this website does not claim CDD will prevent all marital rows. It is simply a tool, one method which many couples round the world feel is quite effective in strengthening their marriages, and improving the quality of their relationship.
CDD is the husband loving his wife enough to patiently guide and unselfishly cherish her.
CDD is the wife loving her husband enough to follow his leadership and trust his direction.
A Christian marriage should embody selfless love and true romance.
A Christian couple is to be a reflection of Jesus and His Bride.
Now you’ll note that they do believe in a male-headed household. Which I, raging feminist as I am, also agree with, for the same reasons I stated in my post about Newmahr, which is basically that two dictators can’t get anything done. It has to be a compromise. If you disagree with the male-headed household, hold your peace and examine everything else in context. As with BDSM, there is a major emphasis on open communication and support, and there is a major blogging community for CDD as well. Also, generally, I think, anonymous.
But to boil down why I think it’s useful, I like to think of trust-falls and dieting. Trust-falls force you to build trust. It is not an option. You can’t “maybe-trust” someone to catch you - and if they don’t catch you, you won’t trust them anymore. BD/s activities do not work without trust. They would not continue without trust. And lack of trust is probably a good portion of most marital strife. Most arguments over decisions happen why? Because they can’t trust the other person to make the decision, right? “I have the better idea. I don’t trust that if you do what you want, it’ll end well.”
As with punishment, dieting is a good example - when I discussed this, I initially likened the punishment/spanking to spanking kids, and the mentality is similar, but the motivation is different; with kids, parents decide what is good/bad; with a spouse, you agree on what is good/bad, and it’s in the agreement. So say I was going on a diet. Or trying to exercise. I’m bad at both. I want to get better, but I can’t motivate myself. So what? I might ask Joe to help motivate me. Maybe if he gets the groceries, then if I don’t exercise, he won’t get me my ice cream for the week. It sounds silly, but it’s the same idea. And it works, especially with women who are prone to self-guilting. We inflict much more self-punishment than anyone else. When they yield control over to someone else, they have to trust that the punishment was sufficient and stop feeling bad and let it go.
Does it work perfect? No. Many couples still struggle. But a lot of women report feeling incredibly loved and secure in their relationship. So, as with BDSM, really, I think it’s important to keep an open mind about these things. Because honestly, these aren’t just weird people - they’re making the decision for a reason.
The weird ones are those of us who don’t question and intentionally make these choices for ourselves about our love and sex lives.
I’m never sure quite where to start when discussing BDSM because it’s a topic I’ve examined a lot - first in literature, with East of Eden in high school, but then through an examination of “deviant” sex cultures (I’m fascinated by sex cultures and have looked at a number of different facets of American, Chinese, and Japanese cultures in particular). In particular, I stumbled upon some BDSM fiction - which, frankly, is better written than 50 Shades of Gray, I’m sure, though it was rather stomach-churning to read some of the scenes… and, as a researcher, I must admit that unfortunately I ultimately could not finish the work… I didn’t even get halfway… What was intriguing to me though, was the discovery that the writer was a guy. And then finding the site the author wrote about how to get started with BDSM.
That was what shocked me. Diving into the material was… rough… to say the least, but looking at the approach to it was really astonishing. Perhaps because the activities are so stigmatized, there has been a need to make it “safe, sane & consensual” but roofies are also rather stigmatized and there has yet to be a community that makes that at all anything near safe. There was such an emphasis on relationship and communicating with your partner(s), and making sure everyone was comfortable. The openness and communication that Newmahr discusses is just as present in the online communities I’ve seen as the ones she studied. Because communication and developing skills is so huge, there are many blogging communities (though it should be noted that generally more women blog, focusing on their experiences, mentality, etc. while men who blog more often write about techniques, etc.) around BDSM, which often cite fellow bloggers, all by their web pseudonym, which may or may not be their name in the club, in events or activities - the clubs that Newmahr talks about where the public physical scenes happen.
There’s so much that these people discuss, some of which is directly related to our class’s discussions, such as the idea of edgework and boundaries. There’s a lot of discussion about how far, and how to go farther, a lot of advice and shared experiences: one post (I’d cite it, but I never saved the links) discusses the idea of a submissive being made to do edgework as a good thing. From his perspective, there’s two types of boundaries, which I think he called boundaries and borders, one which is crossable and the other which is not, and that it is the dominant's responsibility to know which is which, and only push because he/she thinks it is in the submissive’s best interest, i.e. the submissive will be thankful later (like the idea that I want to go skydiving, but I’d need someone to shove me out of the plane).
It’s a very supportive, open community, with a lot of acknowledgement of personal shortcomings and how to deal with them - not just aftercare, but what happens when a submissive won’t submit. Descriptions like that are where there’s a sharp distinction between “physical abuse” and the type of play that occurs in public and in private in these individuals’ lives. Whereas in a stereotypically abusive environment, any flak is met with physical retaliation, when a submissive won’t submit, there’s often a great deal of gentleness and firmness in the response. And aftercare. As with edgework, it’s all seen as in the other person’s best interest; the relationship is seen as mutually beneficial, because it is contingent on the D/s being by choice and by preference.
The decision to have a “power imbalance” by choice may seem strange to most people in today’s post-feminist society. But having power, and thus responsibility, is actually very draining. Maintaining an equal-power household is also very draining. Where you have two leaders, it’s difficult to achieve any peace. Most “equitable” relationships are actually built on compromise, whether it is the idea of separate spheres of influence or shared responsibility. There is usually some degree of yield. Yet not everyone wants to lead. Some people want to give up power. It’s just a personal preference. Everyone wants to be respected, which is an entirely different issue. And both sides are respected in the SM community, and because the activities are framed as mutually beneficial, all the identities are framed as positive.
When you get to know the BDSM community (even like me, which is more like a stalker/voyeur of the online community), honestly, I think it’s very hard to dislike them. We can discuss the probability of their statuses as social outcasts and the stereotypical association with “goths” and “emos” but as people, they really look out for each other - not only their partner, but others in their community, which, is a lot better than those of us in the “normal/dominant” scene can say, not only in terms of physical but also emotional wellbeing.
I’m going to be honest: this reading made me feel literally sick to my stomach. I wanted to throw up. Which, whatever. As someone who has been in a relationship, and has talked to a lot of people who have been in sustained relationships, I am honestly repulsed by some of the comments of these young women. I don’t mean to say it as a judgement thing - what irritates me most is the culture that causes such sentiments, but I’ll get back to that. I also don’t mean it targetted against women; I would be just as angry at men who voice such opinions. Society giving men leave to be sexually promiscuous is completely ludicrous, and the biology they base it off of is severely flawed (I also hate most scientific arguments for things - if there’s a social bias available, I stay skeptical of the argument; science is much less telling than the 20th century has convinced us it is, and any real scientist should acknowledge that).
The arguments used by the women to justify cheating are so revealing of the privileged middle+ class view of love. Delaying adulthood? What a joke! The refusal to take responsibility in one’s life and DO SOMETHING is what is driving this world down the drain. Not that it was better before or after, but that doesn’t make it less of a major problem, and it’s easier now to do it. But that is not the central conversation. Basically, I agree with Alison: cheating is bad, period. I found it interesting that the writers mentioned her “strict conservative views on sexuality, positioned her outside of the collegiate culture of delayed adulthood” because honestly what does that mean? What conservative views? How do conservative views immediately connect to delayed adulthood? If anything, I would argue that her early marriage - which may have been influenced by conservative views on sex - and making that work, or trying to, is probably what puts her outside of the culture of delayed adulthood. Which, frankly, I don’t think is a bad thing.
Again, drawing back to my point earlier this term about “enacted age” and “comprehensive age” - I think these women sound very immature, and it makes sense because this is a sampling of class-privileged women and they have been able to afford to be selfish. Don’t get me wrong, people who are underprivileged can also be selfish, but less easily, and generally with different motivations (I don’t want to go in-depth about privilege/race/class, but I think a rough idea is hinted at in my discussion of Not Under My Roof). Most of them have not yet been through a string of divorces and not yet realized that “the perfect one” that “you won’t want to cheat on” doesn’t exist in a way that women who grow up in communities of fatherless households might. I’m completely generalizing, but that is the sort of statement I expect to hear from people who have not actually talked to couples about the struggle that marriage often is.
I don’t mean to be offensive or super critical - I’m just listening to P!nk and venting - this is just something that I care a lot about because, again, my own expectations about love really set me up for a lot of pain, and I honestly think society’s twisted standards does the same for our relationships. Let me explain.
Wilkins describes how the women interviewed unanimously agreed that they valued monogamy and shamed cheating. But they also saw a validity for cheating in certain circumstances, and half of them had cheated. I really agree with Wilkins conclusion, which was that:
“Women’s cheating occurs in a context of persistent gender inequality in heterosexual relationships, in which women are not expected to control relationship progression or to be direct about their relationship desires. College women’s cheating behavior, then, may be less an indication of collapsing distinctions between men and women’s sexuality than of continued inequity in dating relationships. Women cheat, in part, because they have less power to enter, leave, and negotiate satisfactory dating relationships, and because relationships and femininity continue to be coupled in public understandings. In the context of both relationship inequity and continued pressure on women to sustain relationships, infidelity becomes a strategic option for exiting unwanted relationships.”
Really, a wonderful summary analysis. And I think she’s really right: we have set up this desire for this perfect relationship, via romantic comedies and stories and then given girls no way to get there. Which is extraordinarily frustrating. Women are told we will be in a sexually fulfilling, emotionally rich relationship and that we’ll “know” when we’re in love and it’ll be happily ever after, but men are told that they are wired to just be after sex, and we’re all told that college is no place for a relationship and we’re too young. Many times relationships were described in the paper as “greedy” - which I wonder if it’s a term interviewees actually used, or was something just created by the writer…
Because honestly, the struggle doesn’t get better. It doesn’t get easier. Just because you have an established job down the line doesn’t mean that you’ll be willing to give it up or whatever. And yes, college is an extraordinarily busy time, and yes, people do change a lot, and there are many different opinions about it, but I honestly just wish we policed our scripts less. Yes, relationships CAN be “greedy”. And yes, honestly, being an adult and having responsibilities and taking them onis really scary and not a lot of fun, and yes, a lot of us don’t really get to have a lot of “fun” very often because of the fast pace of society, but it really is about the goals and intentionality with which we approach life, depending on our values. I think that sexual exploration should be able to happen within relationships, and that women should be able to exit relationships; I also think that both men and women should be held responsible to be faithful. As the women discuss, it can be extremely emotionally painful to your partner, and it is often emotionally motivated, but that doesn’t make it a good thing.
2X-STANDARDS : Why Society is F*ed Up
(Pardon my language. This sh*t just actually p*sses me off. Enough to use the vulgar.)
…and… a P!nk song to set the mood…
A lot of people know that I hate the hook-up culture. But they often misunderstand me as hating the people involved in the hook-up culture, whereas, honestly, I just hate the consequences of it. I completely agree with Armstrong, Hamilton, and England that the consequences of a bad hook-up are less life-wrecking than a bad relationship and the idea of an isolated event vs. a longterm investment gone bad. However, I think if a “bad hook-up” is actually sexual assault, then thatis much more damaging, particularly because it can make it incredibly difficult to form any positive longterm-relationship after the fact. I don’t mean that it is impossible for men or women who have been sexually assaulted to form positive relationships, because I know many who have, but it is certainly something that can cause relationship strain because of triggers on the one side and a… difficulty of acceptance on the other side, in worse case scenarios. (There are many encouraging examples of very supportive partners who have empowered their significant other to resolve that part of their lives. In drawing very broad brush strokes, I think we have a culture that, unfortunately, makes it… not the norm, especially when it comes to men accepting women.)
I have many concerns about the hook-up culture, many of which have been discussed ad nauseam: the double-standard for women in terms of participation, the dress code for women as a double-edged sword, the pernicious involvement of alcohol, the ambiguity, the lack of reciprocal pleasure, etc. The list goes on. The problem of inequality between the sexes has been a long one. Yet perhaps a better understanding of love is actually an “easier” though more indirect solution.
One of my biggest frustrations with the hook-up culture is that it separates love and sex and creates bad habits for men and women about being honest and open with one another about their needs and desires. I’m not arguing that we should “challenge gender inequality in both relationships and hookups” - though I think that is important, my recommendation is slightly more nuanced.
When it comes to issues of equality, most people “know” the “right” answer. Of course, we should respect each other. Of course, things should be equal. But when it comes down to brass tacks and actuality, people often disagree in thought and action. What does equality look like? We have generally treated equality as ‘sameness’, that men and women should be paid the same, allowed in the same roles, etc. without really examining what that ends up meaning. In doing so, we have maintained a posture that continues to elevate masculine positions. This is slightly switching with our more service-based economy, but men who are sociable and affable (men who possess more “feminine” qualities) get lauded and are still given greater honor than women who perform the same tasks and skills. Meanwhile, positions like nurses or teachers or mothers are still undervalued despite the important roles they play in shaping society.
I’m curious to see what will happen now that gay marriage has been legalized. I have not felt that the male fear of being labeled “gay” has diminished, nor has the stigma of a straight man being labeled or thought of as “gay” decreased, which is still aggravating, because in the popular definition, all “gay” really means is “effeminate”. This is also true in relationships. There are so many jokes made about relationships and marriages: that a guy becomes “whipped" (which is "effeminate” that he cedes any power over to his girl/woman) or how wives are bossy chatterboxes, and certainly all the wedding toppers featuring men (and occasionally women) being dragged to the wedding are indicative of some thoughts we have about the quality and nature of marriages.
(more funny? cake toppers here)
Likewise, I think the hook-up culture exists because of a flawed understanding of relationships and how to make them work. This would make a lot of sense considering no institution I know has courses on “this is how to build a flawless relationship.” There are probably a million self-help books about it, but it’s just not something we’re expected to learn, it’s something we’re expected to know, and we don’t.
I’m not saying that relationships solve the problem, or that people shouldn’t have the liberty to desire sex outside of relationships in casual hook-ups. People can do whatever they want. But I think the need for casual sex is still rooted in the MALE need for casual sex. Furthermore, most women who engage in the hook-up culture get out of it only the pleasure of feeling desirable, but on whose terms? At whose expense? FOR whose satisfaction? The hook-up culture does not exist because we think men & women need to “get it on” - it exists because we think men can’t resist sex and can’t survive without it, which are just not true. Men and women’s libidos are ALL on a spectrum, and I would bet anything that there are some men whose sex drive is less than that of some women. Is this an innate fact of the hook-up culture or just a product of our hook-up culture being situated in a heteronormative patriarchal society? Not sure. But it certainly is an innate fact of the hook-up culture as it exists for us right now in America and on Dartmouth’s campus.
The hook-up culture reasoning also often focuses on the idea of adolescence exploration, both concepts which I also find rather useless. I’ve discussed the age/maturation idea before, but the exploration part could just as easily happen in a relationship, and can potentially be more satisfying and helpful within a relationship as a couple builds up trust in mutual exploration and satisfaction. This does not happen in many “normal” relationships because there are implicit unstated assumptions about what men and women want in relationships and sex. The lack of communication is, though, I feel, worse in hook-ups, where communication isn’t even expected. Rather, the lack of ambiguity is in many cases, appealing. At least generally it is agreed upon that open discussion is a plus in relationships.
My biggest frustration with the hook-up culture though is the lack of responsibility. I understand the value of momentary pleasure amidst our hectic schedules, but life doesn’t necessarily slow down, and taking responsibility doesn’t just happen, it has to be learned.
Our generation is poorly trained to take responsibility for one another, because we live in a very separated, segregated, individualistic, selfish culture. From kindergarten, we start saying “Mine! Mine! Mine!” And this is a blanket statement, I know not everyone grew up with this mentality, but this is the one that consumerism and the media project upon us, certainly. And whereas relationships, between friends, family, etc. are places for compassion and empathy, where we share burdens and take responsibility for the impact of our actions, but the hook-up culture is not. And taking connection out of pleasure may be a “good” thing because then there are no strings attached, but ultimately it allows this discourse of “well, it’s not sexual assault, it’s a bad hook-up” - certainly in bad relationships, this can go a lot worse, but I truly believe that if we teach people ways to get consent, if we have “consent” work-shops and mutual gazing workshops, and workshops that teach singles and couples how to communicate their needs and desires, that the hook-up culture may fade out of existence. Certainly casual sex, with acquaintances or strangers, will never die, but I would hope to see the return of something akin almost to what courtship was to dating. Where there is hook-up etiquette, so that both partners are satisfied, and that both partners are committed to that and hold each other responsible for it and that that is a norm.
I think targeting inequality by not trying to negate it, but providing something that is just so much better, and that works, in a relationship context (mostly because I think the connotations that come with a relationship are currently more conducive to equality than the associations with hook-ups; also because I think the benefits of the hook-up culture can all be achieved within the context of relationships and I think that good relationships are truly helpful for individuals across the board) is ultimately the most effective way to change the existing culture.
1-DAY AFFAIR : Why the Wedding Industry (and Wedding Planning) ‘Annoys’ Me
While I enjoy weddings and do believe they are incredibly special and important celebrations, the wedding industry infuriates me to no end. The movie 27 Dresses really captures it for me: all the glam and glitz really doesn’t mean much of anything, but we put up with it because in the end we hope that the relationship will be golden. Oh, and Bride Wars.
While as a movie, both chic fliks fall a bit flat, they both offer some stirring commentary on weddings and this idea of “the perfect” day, the “perfect” wedding. In Bride Wars though, *SPOILER ALERT* one of the relationships falls apart during the planning process, which is certainly reflective of real life - which reality TV shows about weddings certainly show us. I honestly don’t know why those exist except to ruin the big day, but whatever. There’s one mock billboard image I saw once that said
Loved the wedding. Invite me to the marriage.
God
And I don’t mean that as a religious thing, but simply that often, as an outside perspective, it seems like most people spend a lot of money on their wedding almost hoping the investment will keep them together, that the extravagant ceremony and honeymoon will somehow patch up any potential holes. And don’t get me wrong, I really LOVE themed weddings. Lord of the Rings? Lovely. Game of Thrones… less so…
George R.R. Martin Shouldn’t Plan Your Wedding
I mean, I’ve already picked a “theme” for my wedding. I don’t have a problem with people wanting to be creative or make it personal or make it nice. I have a problem when that becomes the ONLY point or priority of a wedding. What is the point of a wedding? At the end of the day, the two of you are married. What ACTUALLY needs to happen for that to be true? Very little. My parents got married without a ceremony or a ring. They couldn’t afford one. That didn’t change the fact that they were married and didn’t stop them from starting a family. I don’t understand the overwhelming emphasis on ceremony that pervades most weddings. If there’s significance to the bride and groom, great. If not, why do it? Why do we get told we need MC’s and a $1,000,000-dollar dress that will only be worn for one day and then go into storage for the next several decades, if not forever? Honestly, what is the point?
I want to be there for every wedding I can. But I want there because I want to support the people I love who are dedicating their lives to each other and celebrating that decision, to congratulate and bless them. I want to give presents that will build their home and their relationship. So yes, let there be a party. Sure, with food and dancing.
But why have a culture that says you (the bride) have to get a special dress and all your girl friends and both the mothers have to get special dresses and there must be a ringbearer and flowergirls and a wedding cake and a groom’s cake and toasts and that if you don’t, people will judge you for it? JUDGE YOU? JUDGE A WEDDING?!If we judge anything, why don’t we judge the marriage? I just really find it disgusting that there are so no “simple” weddings in movies. That there are no simple weddings in blogs, in magazines, just like there are no simple proposals. That culturally, we set up this idea that LOVE costs MONEY. Even if we don’t believe it at a conscious level, that is the idea we’re promoting. I won’t even get into consumerism.
I just really believe that weddings are… almost sacred. They are a beautiful day and a beautiful symbol of the start of marriage. And marriage is often hard and painful. But when you see really really old couples that have weathered the storms - and many will tell you that the first 10-15 years were hard - when you see people who have been together for 50, 60, 70 years, it’s really beautiful. Looking back now, I see all the people who have impacted my life, and my mother often tells me that yes, childbirth is painful, and parenting is painful, but it’s worth it for the person I get to become. And I think a wedding is like that.
I don’t care to judge on people’s personal aesthetics and choices. But I don’t think it should be so stressful, and that there’s so much pressure to make it “perfect” or just like anyone else’s, or to do anything because society says you need to. But no matter how much people tell me that it’s “my” day (though really, isn’t it “our” day?) and I should do what makes me happy, will it make me happy still if everyone else hates it?
So I really hate the wedding industry. I don’t hate everyone in it. I just hate the idea of turning love and the union of two individuals into a money-making scheme. That just disgusts me.
I wish we could somehow cling to the simplicity at the heart of weddings, which is, as a lovely old married gentleman once said, that “the first 100 years are the best.” Is it so impossible?
The night I got engaged, someone asked a question about my fiancé - I don’t remember the question, nor do I remember my response, but I remember feeling shocked. Logically, I knew he was now my fiancé, not just my boyfriend, but it had come so quickly within the timing of the proposal that I hadn’t had time to transition over to our new titles. Thankfully, I don’t think I’ve been referred to as his fiancée yet… though he has now been introduced as “my fiancé” which is still just as strange. I remember it also took some time for me to say boyfriend. I often just said “we’re dating” but would introduce him by name, without the “title”.
Yet society is all about the label. Facebook and other social media sites encourage us to DTR or “define the relationship” using commonly accepted terms. We didn’t make it “facebook official” until almost a year and a half later (over some interesting circumstances*). We still haven’t made our engagement “facebook official” because I personally think it’s a rather poor way of announcing things. But it becomes a thing that we “have to know.” Even though there are those couples who break up for an hour before getting back together. That somehow becomes something that “we” have demanded to make rather public knowledge. I’m not sure why. Why is this more important than our dreams or goals in life? Why is it more important than what we mean when we say love? Why are there no boxes or announcements or statuses about that?
What I find strangest about the use of certain nomenclature is that it is often not about the couple or the relationship - it is about their community. The thing that made me the happiest about being engaged was NOT “being engaged” - it really didn’t change our relationship that much in terms of how we interacted with each other. Certainly the decision upped the commitment for both of us, and was an illustration/action demonstrating such but we haven’t actually behaved much more differently with each other. But I was thrilled that now it would be acceptable to others the degree to which we spent time together. Indeed, my other friend, who got engaged before us said something similar: that she felt freer to take time to just hang out as the two of them once they got engaged, that people would understand.
While extreme “intimacy” often acts as an indicator that engagement is coming, it is also often frowned upon outside of engagement/marriage (and occasionally within). Men might be asked if they’re “whipped” while women may be cautioned not to give too much too soon. Ironically, in romantic movies, the same level of intimacy often is the precursor to (and cause of) the relationship, while to the main female protagonist, it is seen as indicator/proof for the validity of the relationship: he’s so sweet, this has to be the one!
I can understand that relationship labels can be helpful for couples to be on the same page about where they stand with each other, as well as acting as reassurance to parents who are worried about their children’s degree of investment. However, I also feel like the existing vocabulary fails to capture what relationships can look like and distort people’s perceptions of the progression of romance by their categorization. Serious dating and engagement are closer than engagement and marriage, which are again closer than the first years of marriage and the later years of marriage. Someone can transition from friend to best friend to fiancé just as easily as a lover might become a boyfriend/girlfriend to fiancé to friend.
Maybe it’s just because I don’t hear the term very often, but calling someone my fiancé formalizes and codifies something I feel like is more organic than a stepladder. But I do it anyway.
NOT UNDER MY ROOF : The Fine InBetween of Love-Lust-Sex
Amy Schalet examines an interesting “dichotomy” between the Netherlands and the United States regarding teenage sex: how the one normalizes it while the other dramatizes it. While parents in the Netherlands approach sex as a natural aspect of love (which they believe is a natural part of growing up), and openly approach the subject with their children - to the extent that Lulu says they watch almost pornographic media together, and that she, a foreign exchange student, was given condoms - parents in the United States approach it through this idea of “not under my roof.” Though it’s something that both parents and children in America know is happening, it’s something that is denied: the white elephant in the room.
Given the statistics of teenage pregnancy and abortions, as well as the stress around sex during and post-puberty in America and the rift it creates between parents and their kids, it is very easy to lean towards the Dutch perspective (though Schalet was, I believe, herself originally Dutch) as the “better” of the two. But are those the only two options? Or is there a fine line between normalizing and dramatizing?
The back-drop of the two “cultural scripts” are very different, as Schalet points out. One is much more religious, and there are socioeconomic factors complicating matters. There are also different philosophical ideas about children and the maturation process. The American model of maturation ends with separation of the parent and the child; it is almost a dreaded scenario for the child to move back in with the parent. Many of the American parents talk about a fine line of independence for their children, while the Dutch model values the relationship between parent and child and acknowledges the antagonism (puber), but transitions through negotiations. But both subscribe to an “incremental growth model”, wherein there are stages of maturation by age, which children pass through on their way to “adulthood.” The commercial industry has made these stages particularly salient, through “collaboration” with contemporary psychoanalysis. Throughout the book, parents on both sides discuss their children being “ready” for certain stages.
Yet being the contentious idealist I am, I’d like to disagree with both models by disagreeing with the idea of there being stages to development in the first place. I know most psychologists will disagree with me, as will most people, because we’ve been indoctrinated with this idea of seniority and a linear model of development, but after reading We’re Friends, RIght? by Bill Corsaro, I’ve really started to question the standard progression model of growth. Due to the familial conflict in my life, and the roles I took on in childhood, many of the adults I spoke to often told me I was “grown up for my age”. Indeed, I got along more with teachers than peers (I suppose I still do)and while I don’t believe I perceived others as more juvenile, there was certainly a sensation of a divide between those around me and myself.
Many individuals who have experienced trauma may relate to that experience, whether it be growing up in times of war, going through several homes, etc. Grief makes the soul old. Yet not all children who experience grief become bitter, nor do they remain so. In college, my friends joked that I frequently switched between acting 7 and acting 40. I think it’s really about resources that determine our “enacted age”, while experiences/knowledge determine our “comprehensive age”. As a child, I did not have the resources to ‘goof off’ the way my friends did. In college, I did. I was allowed more irresponsible moments in college than at home, where I learned to take care of a considerable amount of the housework by high school. That was simply my situation. I don’t resent it nor regret it, and I’ve learned a lot from it, but in many ways I was not “permitted” by my circumstances to be a child. I think this is an increasingly stark divide in upcoming generations: that there are those who are spoiled with instant gratification even as they are being denied their innocence, which causes very interesting behavior and understandings to develop.
I won’t bore you with a full-fledged account of my model for youth development, but as someone currently in a committed relationship and about to get married, I really don’t think age is the big issue. We make a big deal about teenagers, but honestly, there are many young parents that have been amazing, and many much older parents who have been rather juvenile with their relationships. Why? Because when you have more resources, you don't have to grow up. You’re never forced into responsibility as a necessity in the way that underprivileged families are: where the older children must work to support their siblings and their (often) single mother. Many books and articles, such as Guyland, discuss this prolonged adolescence.
Which is why I think the idea of “enacted age” vs. “comprehensive age” is more useful. I strongly agree with the Dutch that love and sex are a natural part of life and that teenagers should be given as many resources as possible. But I don’t agree with what a lot of parents saw as this necessary “exploration age” where a lot of parents expressed that they wanted their children to try more things with more people rather than settling down. I think in some ways its still making the decision for their children - just the opposite decision that American parents make.
I really believe that teenagers can fall in love and get married and all that. I think people of any age can really fall in love. But it’s about empowerment, where I fall in between both cultures. I think there is a degree of separation and independence, as well as a need for continued community support. I “aged” due to what some may call unfortunate resources and experiences. I took love seriously because I knew the cost of divorce and marital strife. But I hope that if I have children, they will take love seriously because they have the resources and understanding to do so. I believe they already have the capacity to. So there is no “not under my roof” or “only if…” for me. I want my children to understand the decision they’re making when they make it and be able and willing to live with the consequences. Which I do believe is something that’s distinct from both sides that Schalet presents.
Post link
LOVE & ONLY : Why My Definition of Love Makes Me Miserable
We use the word “love” so often that one would think we know what it means - or at least collectively agree. But we really don’t, and the disagreements and misunderstandings tend to play out to our disfavor. Personally, my developed definition of love caused me quite the crisis.
Growing up, my parents were constantly comparing me to other children. Most Asian parents do (but not all), because they want the best for their children. They want them to succeed and they’re willing to do just about anything to get them there in a “clean”/“ethical” manner.
It’s just the way love works for them. It’s very much family and generation-based. The love between the generations: parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, etc. was much more important than the spousal or sibling love. It was about advancing the family line and the desire to sacrifice and provide for your children, who would then feel indebted and provide for you in their time, was seen as a natural sentiment. Anyone who didn’t feel such instinctual callings was unnatural - or a bad person.
But because American society heralds the self, my teachers always lauded me and told me how special I was - which my parents then told me was simply flattery, or an area I needed to work even harder in if I had an aptitude for it. My peers seemed to hear nothing but “you’re so wonderful” or “you’re the best” which was just a very different message than I was given. No matter what I achieved, I always felt like second-best, which was an unpleasant feeling. So I developed an idea of love as finally being “the best”. It didn’t matter what anyone else thought of me. I wanted to be “the best” to someone. Anyone. And that person would be the One. Because he would see me as the primary object of his love.
I say he because I identify as heterosexual and because in my mind, this was only possible in a romantic relationship. My parents had me and my sister. I also loved my sister and would never want her to receive less love or feel lesser, as I did. So family was out of the question. If I ever formed my own family, it would be me and a spouse, and for the integrity of the family, the children shouldn’t have a favorite parent. I could adopt as a single parent, but I felt that would be unbalanced, and should I ever have another child, I would not want to have a favorite (the “perfect” love I sought I also imagined as reciprocal). Similarly, with friends, I imagined most of my friends would at one point or another be in a romantic relationship, which would be their stable, eternal love in a way that friendship rarely is - especially for people like me and my family, who moved frequently.
As someone who believes in God and Christ, I have also been told many times that I should seek out my love from God. But my definition again poses a dilemma. While I believe God to be the perfect being, and thus the perfect and most deserving object of love, and, being love itself, that His love towards me is perfect - it is THE definition of love - despite it all, because God loves everyone simultaneously and, so I believe, equally if differently, it could not be “my perfect love” because I wanted to be the only one. The one above all the others. And if I were God’s favorite, that would contradict my idea of God. It’s possible that God can love me uniquely and individually, and He certainly loves me more than anyone human could, but it’s a conundrum that my brain has yet to accept as possible despite the seeming illogic (after all, God does sometimes defy logic - He can, He created it).
So my love had to be with one man, in a permanent romantic relationship. Which in and of itself is simple enough. To be loved solely and above all else is actually, I’ve found, fairly difficult for anyone to accomplish. Furthermore, having tested this in a relationship, it is incredibly stressful for one person to bear the responsibility of fulfilling my entire desire for love. Knowing this, it seems like I should just alter my definition. But I have yet to succeed in doing so. I think it’s because some part of me still longs for that which the definition contains. And I have to let go of the hope that it will be fulfilled, or actually see it to fruition…
Post link
I find Cancian’s analysis to be very helpful and insightful in understanding the transition of values with regards to love and how it’s been heavily influenced by government and economics. In particular, it’s funny to note that even within the Protestant religion, the argument about what marriage looks like has shifted in response to cultural values, and used as justification for both dual responsibility as well as separate responsibility (cultural toolbox indeed). But because I personally remain convinced that some models are better than others, I do feel like there can be some objectivity about what we should be striving towards. Cancian leans towards interdependence and androgynous love, and I think I agree but it’s also true that I think it’s the best option available now. I wonder if earlier models were “better” in the sense of actually being more natural.
Certainly there is more “freedom” of expression, but the question with openness and liberty should be tapered with questions of “liberation FROM what?” and “liberation TO what?” I’m grateful that Cancian states first and foremost that she is focused on middle class love, because in all honesty, androgynous love and interdependence are not always possible in certain economic situations. There is a shocking number of children in single-parent households. How does love work in that circumstance? Does it even? I know that her focus is on couples, but there are so many different living situations where people still have to create their own definitions and constructions of love, and I’d be interested in knowing how her analysis can give us insight into those situations.
Even among couples though, there is so much pressure on women to have a career, to want to be more than “just mothers.” More than just “dependent”. I don’t think that’s right either. While liberation from role constraints is “freeing” in one sense, it also adds pressure to individuals to “make the right choice” and places the burden of responsibility on them. Your happiness is on your own shoulders. That’s the message we’re given. In that situation, I almost prefer more traditional models, where your parents find a suitable candidate for your marriage. The Chinese drama that I mentioned in my last post is an interesting twist on that, where two mixed-up arranged marriages actually lead to romantic love. But what creates companionate love? Isn’t it generally pursuing the same goals? In Fiddler on the Roof, there’s a scene towards the end, I believe, when the couple tries to figure out if they “love” each other. And the conclusion is that they do, clearly, because they’ve done life together.
Am I sanctioning girls being sold into marriage? No, but maybe? I’m just saying, is that really such an awful system as we believe? Or is it solely because we have learned to value SEX as an individual’s prerogative? That they should decide who their partner(s) is/are? I’m not condoning rape at all, but I am arguing that if people truly believe that sex is simply for procreation, then why does it matter if young girls are having sex. Personally, this is not my perspective on sex, but if this is the value our culture places on sex, it seems interesting that we think about it in this way. But that’s a separate issue…
I think the problem in society is less that women should be this or love should be this or whatever. Rather, I think it’s the fact that we claim to value one thing but actually praise another. We praise love yet we condemn the feminine. That’s the real issue. I like if we embraced the feminine in society (since EQ is actually extremely important to business), there would be a greater equalization period. But that’s probably just because I’m feminist.
Plato suggested the theory of complementarity, wherein opposites are necessary to define each other. In that sense I agree that we need both “masculine” and “feminine” love and roles and that they should be fluid and flexible. But I also wonder if there’s a better classification than by gender. Rather than using terms like androgynous, I think the idea of the 5 Love Languages is much more useful (even though I still don’t think it’s all encapsulating).
(HYPER-)INVISIBILITY : The Asian Non-Model for Affection
I’m always confused when I watch Asian music videos - by which I mean K-pop and J-pop, primarily… and the degree to which the videos feel so sexualized. As someone who grew up watching old Asian (Chinese) dramas like 還珠格格 (which recently had its remake), it’s strange to know that some of the new Korean dramas are… well, R-rated. While I think most of us (though that’s probably not as true as I believe) struggle or feel loathe to envision others in the throes of passion, the depiction is fairly common in America cinema, something that has made me uncomfortable because it is so absent in Chinese cinema. For example, in 上错花轿嫁对郎*, a show that came out in 2001 and is focused around the idea of marriage, I don’t remember any scenes that show kissing, period. There are probably a few, but not many in a 20 1-hour episode show. Rather, intimacy and affection is shown in long embraces. “Intimate” scenes feature the couple lying down on a bed together, fully clothed.
What’s more remarkable is that this is a step forward even for the culture. Of my parents’ generation, nobody holds hands in public. No one leans into each other or sits touching each other. Even of the couples I know in America, there is a distinct lack of public affection between Asian couples and American couples. Of my peers, if they display a lot of physical intimacy, often it is coupled with an open embrace of another culture - in short, it is not classically considered a part of the culture we “grew up in” which is usually our parents’ culture. Parents who are more traditional, especially the Chinese parents I know, don’t have a sex talk, generally don’t approve of dating in high school, but might be confused why you’re not in a committed relationship by the time you enter grad school.
Contemporary culture of Korean and Japanese dramas are dramatically different. And I’m not quite sure why. It is possible that the government is trying to control the population of China by not encouraging more romantic media to be created. The general disparity between the classes may also because of the distinction between Asian cultures and their portrayal of love and romance on the big screen (particularly given the middle-class nature of such entertainment). But even so relative to American movies, the classic tropes are very different. American women are often either bold/brash and then “subdued” or humanized by love (see “The Proposal”, “Groundhog Day”, “Juno”, etc.) or sensitive/caring ones who win over the “playboy”/“bad boy" (see "A Walk to Remember”, “Beastly”/“Beauty & the Beast”). In Chinese drama, which, of the ones I’ve watched, are often historical, there is the “cultured, demure, perfect girl” who earns love through her faithfulness, and the “uncultured, ‘masculine’, poor girl” who is softened by love. The class element is often a part of the character trope and also often plays a part in the male characterization as well.
All this to say, the normalized presentation of love is pretty… chaste? Traditional? At least by American standards. But it goes beyond couples. Growing up, families didn’t hug (unless it was after crying) or kiss or even say “I love you.” Parents don’t ask about your day, they ask about your homework, about your success. But that is “love” is caring about how successful you are, which I thought was the strangest thing, and didn’t really consider love at all. There was a shift when I finally told my parents “I love you” - and I often still do it in English because it feels weird to do it in Chinese. It just feels… awkward and embarrassing. My younger sister and I are super affectionate, but we do it in English as well. It’s just really weird, because it seems illogical.
I’m also listening to “I Knew I Loved You (Before I Met You)” right now and I would say that I don’t think the disparity exists as much in terms of love songs… but I’m not sure if that’s just because I haven’t listened to as many Chinese love songs, or if it’s because it’s not as prevalent in the media.
*for those of you who are curious what a more “traditional” Chinese drama looks like, you can actual watch some English subtitled videos like the ones above. (it starts with episode 6, unfortunately, but it gives you a sense of what a lot of the ones I’ve watched are like)
I thought Swidler’s argument about the usage of culture was really interesting. While her writing was a bit dense and the analysis a bit… longwinded… her understanding and investigation of our usage of culture and the role it plays in an individual’s life was really enlightening. Until reading the book, I had more or less described myself as “anti-pop-culture” or “culturally illiterate” but in reality it’s not that I didn’t know any culture, but that the aspects of culture which were popular among my contemporaries were often the parts of culture which I actively rejected or which constituted mydistanced culture. For myself, I had set up a dichotomous story of me against culture, though in reality, I was simply choosing the culture of my parents more often over the culture of my peers. Yet to my mind, I was entirely logical and cohesive.
But it’s always easiest to notice hypocrisy in others, and I felt challenged about my own appropriation and selection of culture in reading the complicated views and reasoning her respondents voiced. Having those responses to her questions was really helpful (even if, honestly, I struggle to understand her analysis sometimes), because they offered concrete examples of real people that I might otherwise not have believed existed - or considered to be in the vast minority. Particularly, Nora amazed me because I’ve always assumed that women thought a lot and were very articulate about love (which Swidler would probably say is a result of my personal obsession for over-analysing and talking about issues of love, etc.) My instinctual reaction was a, “is this woman for real?! does she really never think about these things?”
It was fascinating to consider that the differing approaches was actual a result of settled/unsettled lives, and the proactiveness with which someone was shaping their own life/experience. I always assumed that it was “better” for everyone to be thoughtful and proactive about their lives. But after reading Privilege last term I feel like it is actually a culturing of the elite class. It is a message directed to those who want to be leaders and have the time to consider these facets of their life. It is a very middle-class and upper-class mentality: that we can and should be proactively pursuing our own happiness, that we should be thriving, not just surviving. It’s just fascinating because people with unsettled lives often seem (at least in this survey) to be more unhappy, and to be going through struggle. At a fundamental level, most of us would agree that this is undesirable. Yet using culture is also often a product of a diverse community and the idea of a cultivated identity, which is the ideal, open-minded upperclass elite lifestyle.
But the other people who have unsettled lives are members of minority groups who do not want to remain within given stereotypes and have to select from multiple cultures between race, class, etc. in order to form their strategies of action. At least for myself, Swidler’s examination of the usage of culture to me highlights why I often feel a struggle against society, because although there’s a lot in my cultural toolkit, coming from two different cultures with different ideals about love, etc. there’s also a lot of conflicting emotions about what aspects of culture I can and should use because the two often “contradict” or oppose each other. The dilemma is intensified by the fact that I don’t associate myself particularly with either of the prodominant streams of the two cultures, that is to say, there is nothing that readily fits. So I have assembled a very ecclectic blend of multiple cultures to form an ideology that very few people around me agree with. Which in many ways is not a particularly pleasant place to be, though I actively back myself up with cultural arguments that make me feel justified, as Swidler might have predicted.
For all the hype about Asian American success and Asian Americans as the model minority, the reality is much more complicated. Even though the stereotype is that Asians are “smarter” and more “academically-driven” than non-Hispanic whites (honestly, this distinction is really insensitive, and I just want to say that), in reality, Asians are actually more likely to get a bachelor’s degree, but less likely to have a high school degree, indicating that Asian Americans who do “succeed” academically may do so to a greater degree than their “white” peers, but that those who do not achieve academic success are worse off than their white peers.
As a whole, they still seem “better off” than other minorities. There is a marked difference when we break down the statistics by country of origin, however.
Most of these differences are very clear when we consider history – returning to the(condensed and incomplete) timelines from my second post, that America signed immigration treaties with these different nations at different times under different circumstances. Yet in the simplification of the term “Asian American,” most people really only notice the most prominent countries:
Ignorance of the “lesser” populations, the smaller ones, hides a lot of startling differences in the narratives we see. Furthermore, a substantial percentage of immigration comes from those seeking refuge, and I have had friends whose families were torn apart in the hope that one or two might receive a better fate. A friend of mine from high school never saw her parents and two older sisters after a decision for her to come to America with an aunt, yet the hope is that a reunion may come someday. For those who come without fortune, connections, any understanding of the language, ready employment, for those who have lost their family, home, and often, all that they own, America can be a very different place.
Even within a single country of origin though, there are still many wide achievement gaps, depending on what generation “American” you are, as well as the time period of your immigration. I speak from the Chinese background, which I have seen the most of.
The first immigrants that gain a lot of public attention are the cheap migrant workers, such us those on the Continental Railroad. Much like the early Irish immigrants or our contemporary Mexican immigrants, they had poor education, but had come to seek a better living and to provide for their families.
The next wave of immigrants from mainland China were not until much later. Even with the Immigration Law, the People’s Republic of China placed strict restrictions on emigration until 1977, so much of the immigration in the 1960′s and 1970′s were from Taiwan. This early immigration accounts for why when Taiwanese are statistically “more prosperous” in demographic studies relative to individuals from mainland China (NOTE: if you do not know the complicated history and politics between Chinese and Taiwan, please Google it, as it is important, but not enough that I will entail it in this short blog entry.)
At the same time, the Cultural Revolution “destroyed” and “redistributed” wealth – at least in theory. There is much that could be said about the ideological shifts that happened and their impact on current history, but in the interest of time, I will simply conclude by saying that many of the immigrants which came next were generally not wealthy. Once the immigration barriers were first lifted, most of the next wave of individuals who arrived were scholars and businessmen. Many, like my parents, and the parents of a lot of my cohorts, became fairly well established by the time I was a teenager. However, there were also many undocumented immigrants, without offers at institutions of study, who forged their own way through manual labor, often in places like Chinatown. In many Chinese grocery marts, there are advertisements for English lessons, which are the rare opportunities for education and advancement that many of the “older” citizenry may have, if at all.
This contrasts heavily with the latest generation of immigrants, which contain a much larger percentage of students from wealthy backgrounds sent to America for study and stimulation. As Asia has prospered, education has become extremely competitive, with heavy fees for the best schools and extracurricular classes in every imaginable pursuit.
In short, there are very strange contrasts set-up in today’s Chinese American population, primarily in a publicly largely unrecognized class divide. There are, as I see them, three large categories which exist today:
- Chinese Americans whose parents have “pulled themselves up by their bootstraps” and made many sacrifices to ensure the access of their children to a good education
- Chinese Americans whose parents were disadvantaged, and whose children are now given the opportunity of the parents of those in group 1
- Chinese Americans currently immigrating from China from relatively successful families (this has also been aided somewhat by the one-child policy, which allows for a greater concentration of resources into single individuals*)
That is to say, there are two populations of Chinese Americans which are generally more affluent – but even that is a wide range, and the class differences that apply to other populations are just as evident in this population. Yet many of the stereotypes of Chinese American behavior, their stinginess and bargain-shopping comes from the past generation, where smart spending was a necessity of survival, a lifestyle that many families still have to live by within the Chinese American community but that for others is just a funny caricature of their parents. And to the influx of Chinese immigrants, some of these stereotypes don’t hold any cultural relevancy.
There is so much more that could be said dissecting the different cultures of these groups, where they intersect and where they don’t, but as this is already rather lengthy, I will simply conclude with this thought:
Race is NEVER a stand-in for class. The more we make generalizations by ethnic and national categories, the more we obscure the struggles of many within these populations, and hold them to expectations that are as impossible to them as someone who is a “true minority.” While national and cultural pride is something that should be honored and often becomes a key component of understanding one’s identity, while languages and traditions connect individuals of diverse backgrounds, it is also alienating for individuals whose realities are not understood or represented in the large understandings of racial demographic patterns. The statistics about Chinese American affluence do nothing to alleviate the struggles of those living in Chinatown, who are visited by the affluent, but who often live in squalor, whose stories are never told though their accents are laughed at and whose communities only come to light in reports about suspicious meats being served. American media has upheld the model minority standard while remaining suspicious of the impoverished within the community, never stopping to recognize a problem exists in their definition of the category of race.
I speak about the Chinese because they are not a minor, obscure minority that we have forgotten about. They are a large, over-generalized racial category that does not work.
*Granted, for said individuals, the financial burden is much greater on them to provide for two sets of parents by themselves, and would exponentially increase over time if everyone followed the laws properly, and life was mathematical, but given that this isn’t really relevant to the point at hand, please just store it away as a consideration for a rainy day.
Sociological Imagination is an approach to the world around us at the intersection of the world and person, history and biography, and creating an understanding such that renders one better equipped to navigate the structures around them. This is the first blog post in a series of three wherein I have elected to investigate the Asian-American identity from different perspectives. In my first blog post, I’ve approached the idea from an individual autobiographical standpoint, drawing from my personal experiences and struggles with identity. In my second blog post, I examine the idea from a historical perspective, while this, the third, draws some concluding thoughts from the intersection of history, biography, and social trends.
Graphs and diagrams taken from “Asian Americans” from Pew Social Trends, 2010-2012 and “A Community of Contrasts” released by Asian American Center for Advancing Justice about the Asian American community in 2011.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/18/living/same-sex-parents-sochi/Dartmouth instructor Sienna R. Craig remembers writing an impassioned opinion article in support of same-sex parents while in high school. What she didn’t write was that her father’s business partner was also his life partner.
At Dartmouth, our mental health services are so sparse that if you need them, you need to anticipate that you will with enough time in advance to have even a reasonable shot at accessing them.
This is a very disturbing story about a young woman on a college campus experiencing harassment. The content in this link is pretty raw but we are choosing to share it because sexual harassment on college campuses continues to be a pervasive issue.
For those of us long past college, it’s shocking to see how the nature of harassment has changed over the years. It’s both more public and more anonymous.
viajezebelcom
“If the Indian Mascot could speak”
Savage Media
The Indian Mascot can speak, sit back and listen.
Filmed at the Native American House, Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire.
Follow us: @realsavagemedia Like: facebook.com/savagemedia1769
“Sometimes it takes a storm for the whole sea to start doing the wave.
I know it took a storm for the message in the bottle to finally reach my shore.”
-Andrea Gibson
a dedication to those students, alums, faculty, staff, community members at Dartmouth seeking to make Dartmouth a more inclusive and loving space for all.
