Body Image

Chip Wilson, founder of the store Lululemon specializing in women and men’s workout clothing, was scrutinized for his statement he made in 2013 declaring that “Frankly some women’s bodies just actually don’t work for [wearing Lululemon pants]… it’s really about the rubbing through the thighs, how much pressure is there over a period of time, how much they use it,” suggesting that certain body weights do not look flattering in his clothing. Lululemon immediately started getting backlash from women all over the country stating that they will no longer be wearing his clothes. Reporters started arguing that you cannot serve part of the population and not all of them. The question is why? Easy. The society we live in is constantly surrounded by companies sugar coating certain things to please all consumers. It is not okay to make clothing that does not fit certain people, because everyone has to be satisfied or else someone is doing something wrong. Eventually, Wilson put out a public apology stating that “I’m sad for the repercussions of my actions. I’m sad for the people at Lululemon who I care so much about, that have really had to face the brunt of my actions. I take responsibility for all that has occurred and the impact it has had on you.” This apology was not accepted by society so he eventually ended up stepping down from this position.

I’d like to ask a question as a social constructionist, what did Chip Wilson REALLY do wrong? Sure, he offended a lot of people. He made a statement about women’s body weight. In our society, that is wrong. But right there, that’s the issue. “In our society.” We are not allowed to discuss certain things that will offend others, especially as a public businessman. The right path for Chip Wilson would be to start making clothes that fit those specific body types. But even though he offended a lot of people, which society views as ‘bad’, he was being noble and true to the original vision he had for his company. Within his own community, making a product that only fit certain people made sense to him. Making a product that fit bigger women, he argued, would cost him more money, which he did not want to do. People were asking him to change his beliefs, change his mindset, simply because his were not ‘normal.’ But normal to who?

Different communities value different things. When this statement was heard, immediately every assumed, ‘oh, he is so terrible! How could he be so insensitive?’ Because in our society, we know when things are suppose to be considered ‘wrong.’ But if our society did not know that weight should not be discussed, would everyone still consider this statement so offensive? If people could step back and realize there are other truths in this world, other than their own, then these disagreements would not have to stem in the first place and maybe Chip Wilson could still have his company that he started and loves.

Gender Discourse

Every culture is filled with many stereotypes. In America especially, it’s a very common stereotype that men work while women stay at home with the children or take care of the house. People argue that it’s just the way it is. It does not start there. Before a child is even born into this world, these stereotypes are being fulfilled. Friends and family immediately want to know if this baby is going to be a boy or a girl, in order to pick out the right colored clothing or toys. Girl? Pink room. Boy? Blue room. Often times, in the hospital, they even give the new born a pink hat or blue hat. One automatically has to become this gender because of the culture surrounding them. These stereotypes are not engrained into life. It is not an absolute must that these stereotypes and discourse is followed, but time after time, it is being followed because that is all people know. What they don’t realize is, this could not be the case without the discourse surrounding it. Because of the way our society discusses the gender roles of females and males, the actions follow. Women feel pressured from society to be good mothers, while males feel pressured to be good workers, and this all starts from the gender discourse surrounding them as babies. This is just a way of talking! There is nothing wrong with being a stay-at-home dad and there is nothing wrong with a mother working a corporate job. There is nothing wrong with a little girl wearing a blue hat and there is nothing wrong with a little boy in pink. Or a girl playing with a truck or a boy playing with a kitchen set. We find ourselves falling into these stereotypes, surrounded by the constant discourse, that it literally defines the lives we live.

With social constructionism, anyone has the opportunity to be part of a different discourse. Realists cannot see past the lives and beliefs they are already part of. If you believe that all women should stay home and take care of the children, then any other option is already wrong in your mind. But as a constructionist, you can see other truths. Realize that these ‘beliefs’ are simply stereotypes created by discourse in our community. In other places in the world, these stereotypes do not exist at all. It is Americanized for girls to be in pink and boys to be in blue. With a different conversation, there are

so many different opportunities to be had. If a girl was not raised surrounded by kitchen toys and raising babies, maybe she would not feel so pressured to be a stay-at-home mom. This video we attached is defining everything we just argued. These moms in the Halloween store are listing off ‘appropriate’ costumes for a boy to wear; cop; army; fireman; Spiderman. But princess? No, that is a girl’s costume ONLY. These moms go on to say “don’t worry, it’s just a phase!” because if it was not just a phase, well that is suggesting that your son is gay. And then a girl is not ‘pretty’ enough in her boy’s costume. The discourse around gender literally strips little girls of wanting to be strong and boys wanting to be sensitive. That’s what this discourse does? It defines people because of their actions.

This is the case with so many different aspects of our lives today. We live in certain ways because we think that is our only option. We cry when we know we are supposed to, we get angry when there is a ‘necessary’ reason to fight, we wear certain things; the list goes on and on. Create a different conversation, break the stereotypes. If people could start doing this, there would be far more opportunities for change.

Multiple truths

     

     According to Michel Foucault, “Truth has its existence within discourses and practices and understandings produced by them and through them. Truth, in human affairs, is historically and culturally situated in practical activities, not abstractly transcendental and existing outside these practices” (Foucault, 247). In other words, according to social constructionist ideas, truth varies from each community, shifts overtime depending on social norms, and is a byproduct of multiple relations. For, we can look at it as there not being any concrete “Truth”, but rather multiple truths that evolve and change overtime depending on how communities construct them.

     Take for example the Catholic Church and Pope Francis’s newly outward beliefs. For a long time, one of the accepted truths within the church was that homosexuality was to be condemned as a sin. Additionally, the idea of “hell” as a true and solid existence was widely believed by followers. However, as times have shifted and social norms have changed, the religion itself has also taken on new forms of truth. For instance, Pope Francis recently declared that the Catholic Church is accepting of homosexuality, as well as the fact that hell is a metaphor and not an actual place one goes after they die. In the CNN article, “Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions”, he states that “We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety” (Burke, 1) when asked about new forms of marriage.

     This is just one strong example of how truths can not only change overtime within certain communities, but also how they are rationalized through the acceptance of the relationships surrounding the certain truth.

Beauty: More than Skin Deep

Article: http://www.refinery29.com/tanning#page-1

On April 28th Maria Del Russo took to popular lifestyle and beauty blog Refinery29 to talk about her addiction to tanning as a teenager. Del Russo describes sitting outside on the beaches of the Jersey Shore, tanning until itchy red bumps covered her skin. "There are photos from my teenage years that include my two brothers, my father, and all of my friends, and we're all the same burnt-red, slightly orange color. It was a way of life." (Del Russo). She was literally getting poisoned by the sun, yet continued to do it because it was her way of life. That bronzed skin, in her mind, was beauty. Even at the sacrifice of her health (she mentioned being fully aware of the risks of skin cancer) the drive did not falter. This is her way of life, so what's the problem?

As a social constructionist, I would let Maria know that this did not have to be the "correct" or the "natural" way of life.  Social constructionists know that norms, are created through language. It has now always been beautiful to be tan, but rather "the world is not then born of the pictures in our minds, but of realtionships" (Gergen 6). It was not as though someone imagined or discovered a tan woman, and thus the rest of society attempted to emulate her. Rather, society through its interactions of variety of communities has, through language, come up with standards that are awlways changing.

Need evidence? Look at the 1800s where woman who were heavy and pale were the most beautiful, because they had money and didn't have to work. In the 1920's woman bound their chests; in contrast to the 1980s in which breast implants were all the rage. The list goes on. But why does this matter: taking a critical look at Maria Del Russo's view of being tan as beautiful as "the way it is" is not universally true. It has changed over time, through history as well as in different communities. With that, there is potential for coordinating with others, and perhaps stimulating change.

Science Isn't Neutral

      Emily Martins article The egg and the sperm: knowledge as ideology in Social Construction A Reader illustrates the way that biology defines the reproduction system and describes how the women’s reproduction system is categorized as “waste” and “death”. Males are than more powerfully described in the biology textbook; such as the fact that the author doesn’t write sperm is considered to be “waste” as well.  Martin explains how science shows a different use of language that reflects upon the stereotypes central to our cultural definitions of male female.

            This scientific fairytale presented in a major scientific textbook demonstrates how the women’s monthly cycle is described to produce eggs to prepare a place for them to be grown and fertilized, till the end of making babies. “By extolling the female cycle as productive enterprise, mensuration must necessarily be viewed as a failure. Medical texts describe menstruation as the “debris” of the uterine lining, the result of necrosis or death of tissue” (Martin 28). This implies that the system has gone to make products useless and wasted. There is even an illustration in the medical text showing the menstruation as chaotic disintegration. “In 1948, in a book remarkable for its early insights into these matters, Ruth Herschberger argues that female reproductive organs are seen as biologically interdependent, while male organs are viewed as autonomous, operating independently and isolation” (Martin 29). These descriptions illustrate how science is not neutral. Another example that portrays science not being neutral is a show called “Brain Games”.

            “Brian Games” is a show on a National Geographic. There was an episode that talked about stress and how our brain controls stress. This episode shows in a scientific point of view of how our brain controls stress, and what happens to our brain that makes us feel stressed. However, from a social constructionist viewpoint, one can control how they choose to feel during a stressful situation. In other words, you can spend your time being “stressed” or you can spend your time choosing to respond differently to a situation.

We Live Our Lives in Narrative

     

     In realizing that narratives constantly surround the world in which we live in, we are able to recognize which we construct ourselves through various narrative forms. The movies we watch, the books we read, and even media, such as the news, play into repeated narratives that have been constructed for centuries. Because we are surrounded by these constant discourses, we learn to construct our own “stories” by them, as well. From a social constructionist perspective, one is able to dissect how we establish certain narratives and how we act out expected narrative performances.

     As Vivien Burr discusses in her, book, An Introduction to Social Construction, “It is useful to think of these narratives as the ways we live out our lives as well as the way we privately or publicly tell of them” (Burr, 93). In other words, people begin to shape their lives in forms of narratives, such as comedy, romance, or tragedy, which each take on different characteristic forms. A “romance” narrative, for example, is a dominant discourse in our Western culture, where the climax for many people’s narratives is finding one’s “soul mate”. Additionally, there are distinguishing construct narratives that both males and females are expected to abide by.

     However, there can be implications for those who change the dominant, accepted narratives of a situation, and attempt to fit them into a new narrative framework. Take the images I attached for example about the Boston bombing victim costume, as well as the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin costumes. In both cases, the largely accepted narratives were “tragedy”, to which most people responded to them in this way. However, as we can see, some people chose to reshape the constructed “tragic” narrative to one of “comedy”. Furthermore, these people received immense backlash from communities of people who felt that they were dismantling the moral structure connected to death and tragedy. For a social constructionist, it is apparent here to see that the larger community were not willing to play as “co-actors” in the construction of these comedic stories. Therefore, we can see that a large part of people’s personal narratives are dependent upon the relationships that are willing to support the events of our narratives.

Together We Make Meaning: Westboro Baptist Church hits the Lorde Concert

Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/24/westboro-baptist-church-lorde_n_5021135.html

Recently, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, passed away. Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for its extremist ideologies and hatred toward homosexuals and has been called "arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America" (Southern Poverty Law Center). Many would remember the Westboro Baptist Church's picketing of a military funerals, carrying signs reading "fear god" and "god hates fags" among others. 

Recently, members of the Westboro Baptist Church went to the singer Lorde's concert in Midland Theatre in Kansas City, Mo., on Friday to protest the singer for "serving herself and teaching other young people how to be indolent rebels" (Sieczowski) one day after Phelps' death. However, as the protesters arrived, the Lorde fans held up a sign reading "Sorry for your loss".

The way that the Lord fans reacted to the hatred that the Westboro Baptist Church hurled their way supports the idea that meaning is co-constructed. "The process of co-action is not simply an exchange of words alone. As we coordinate movement together we are also co-creating meaning (Gergen 98). Meaning is created through language, between the two parties. The Lorde fans could have chosen to retaliate and hurl vitriol back toward the church members. Instead, they chose to use a message of compassion, offering sympathy for the death of their deceased leader. This created a completely different meaning of the interaction. 

This has huge implications for the way the situation played out. Conflict between the two parties could have led to insults at best, violence at worst. This shows how powerful reframing a situation can be on its outcome.