A Trip to Starbucks and Borders

Our class was tasked with observing human behavior and relationships in a public place. I went ahead and brought a digital recorder with me (I did not record people). Below is the recording with some graphics to make it a little more interesting than a simple recording. I also threw in a video blog test with some minor commentary and whatnot.







Observations (as recorded on personal recording device)

It is Sept 22nd, around 5 O'clock or so. I've just arrived at the Starbucks Coffee on Devonshire by the abandoned Blockbuster, soon to be Wachovia. Let's see what's going on.

Apparently, the establishment has changed very much since I worked at the Blockbuster over a year ago. There are less chairs and tables now, for which to observe people. There are about three people outside, with a dog. Two older-looking men and a young man, the dog is older. One of the men is heavily bearded. Heavily bearded. They seem to be discussing something about entertainment. I heard something about Jack Nicholson's vocal coach, it seemed like one man associated with him at some point perhaps. Inside the Starbucks there were approximately seven people with three employees on top of that. One older blonde woman had her laptop with her cell phone plugged into it, apparently charging it. When the blenders turned on, it was a little loud for her to hear who she was talking to on the phone, so she walked outside, where she is now. One man was on his laptop as was another man. There was a group of three: an older man and two boys going over math problems of some sort. There were two men in the back who I couldn't see clearly, one was dressed formally the other casual-formal. Not too much going on here. Now I have to pay attention because I am aimlessly driving around Chatsworth or Chatsworth-Northridge, something like that. Maybe I'll take some time to go over to the Northridge Borders and see if it's a little better over there. See if I can avoid getting into a car crash. Okay.

The Borders Bookstore in Northridge was much more as expected, compared to the Starbucks. For a Monday afternoon, it was adequately filled with people, not overly full like a weekend. I was able to glean a few instances from the experience. The first notable instance was by the door, as I was walking by the magazine stands, a couple came in. A younger couple, perhaps in their teens, maybe their early twenties, probably early teens though. They walked in the turned toward the magazine stand and he remarked "Baby, baby, baby, look!" He wanted her to look at the World War II magazines. Another instance, I walked by the religion area of the store and found one couple looking at religious books. The young woman seemed interested in looking at book from different religions, or religion in general. She mentioned that her grandfather used to talk to her about religion or different religions as a child, she seemed like she was on her own journey to see what it was all about. An interesting thing happened, they asked for help from one of the employees who seemed to be very helpful. He showed them Judaism, Catholicism, alternative ones against them, and also I believe they went over a few Eastern religion books. He gave his story for a bit, his mother was Catholic and his father a born-again Christian minister and he converted to Judaism. He also mentioned that he had done several projects on Eastern religion because he was directed to pursue learning about a religion that he had not been influenced by throughout the course of his life. So he seemed to be a very knowledgeable young man.


Thoughts

At the Starbucks, I was struck by how prevalent technology has become in our daily lives. The use of computers appeared much more pronounced in the coffee chain, but it made me think of how this technology has changed our communication habits. What could have been a somewhat social meeting place was actually devoid of much sound at all, save for the coffee blender's interferrence. It seems that, with the ubiquity of iPods and laptops and other mobile forms of technology, we use these technologies to avoid personal interaction, or at least trade the human interaction of strangers with the digital communication with those we already know.

The objectiveness of my observations were betrayed momentarily as I noted the bearded man outside the Starbucks. Reflecting back, I wonder if I was merely suprised by seeing a person whose cultural influences and experiences seemed likely to be much different than my own. Perhaps a bit assuming, it was not hard to imagine him as part of the anti-establishment or "hippie" group of the 1960s. That assumption does bring up an interesting issue, though. That would mean he was an active participant in the changing paradigm of masculinity in that era. The Barker text refers to this as the "betrayal of the modern man," where the ideal of masculinity spawned disillusionment as the "dutiful and useful" men returned from the Second World War only to soon discover "downsizing, unemployment, the Vietnam and Korean Wars, feminism, and a decline in public concern with space travel." Just a thought.

The Second World War came up more overtly in the Borders Bookstore. When the young man attempted to draw his campanion's attention to the WWII inspired magazines, I initially wrote off the interaction as merely marginally sexist and somewhat obnoxious. I believed on some level he was drawing attention to her feminism, as a person who could not relate to the experience or would find it distasteful. Upon further reflection, though, I realized that this young man has no stake in that experience either. That knowledge completely re-imforms the situation, as a man attempts to reinforce his failing sense of gender identity through association with men of a more defined and perhaps nobler time. This idea emphasizes the slightly desperate tone of a man trying to grasp his partner's attention and finding his effort without any gain.

As I encountered the couple in the religious section of the store, some ideas of feminism came up. It is very possible that this woman was searching for some sense of identity in learning about different religions. She seemed to have been greatly affected by the influence of her grandfather and his talks with her about the subject. Though not necessarily the case, the situation harkens to the patriarchial structure. Religious institutions (as a generality) often contribute to that same theme of saturated power relations. The store employee reminded me a bit of our conversation about culture and anti-culture, as he was drawn to a belief system that was not the same as his parents but the similarities did not seem to go further.

Picture Credits -
Starbucks Cup: http://bigmarketing.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/the-starbucks-experience-wins-over-coffee-everytime/
Borders: http://decaturmetro.com/2008/03/25/borders-books-ponders-selling-out/
ZZ Top: http://levrock.com/?p=Gallery&gid=7

Initial Thoughts on Short Cuts

While I found the reading fairly entertaining throughout, I definitely had a few issues with it. At my most petty, I'm a stickler for how a piece is written; misspelled words, horrible grammar, and poor flow get to me. I did not find any misspellings, assuming the writers are not American ("adherence to a recognisible formula" and later uses of "analysed" and "maximise"). My favorite bit though, was about Sleepless in Seattle: "Tears are the result of both of these feelings and guarantee that, since she can be moved to tears by Sam's love, Annie merits its inheritance." Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I feel like you have to read this line forward then backward to understand.

Those things beside the point, what really irritated me was the complete tone of expertise on the genre (and life essentially) without nearly any supporting evidence. I have not seen Sleepless in Seattle, in fact, my preconceived notions of the film are likely different from any others because I know it by its re-imagined trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frUPnZMxr08). I cannot believe, though, that merely tearing up about Sam's love will ever necessarily "merit its inheritance." They follow with no proof of this. In order to legitimize their claim of the romcom as being the "lowest of the low" in genres, they use a romantic comedy review book. Just because someone writes reviews of romantic comedies does not make them the end all and be all on the subject. I see it just as likely that the authors felt it necessary to fess up to some amount of illegitimacy in the romcom genre in order to escape outside ridicule for writing such a book at all. If nothing else, reviewers are out to make money like everyone else and belittling what you do often has the effect of disarming an audience (as the authors note about the genre itself), a happier reader will ultimately buy the book.

Cat Contribution

Our group meetings began to help clear up how we were to give our presentation. CC brought up that she saw the cage as a major theme in the play, arching over many of the topics presented. This became our theme. I initially thought I'd tie this idea in with the alcoholism throughout the scenes. Upon further discussion, we opted to cover fewer subjects so as not to rush our discussion. We paired off into three main topic groups. I paired up with Jessica to lead the topic of gender as presented in the play as well as its relation to an outside work War of the Roses. We'd also both serve as kind of the discussion generators in case the group hits a lull. The format we decided on involved saying a few words about our topic and the film clips we were showing, watching the clips (compiled by Pip), and allowing the class to discuss what it says about our topic and how it relates to Williams' play.

Being responsible for knowing a bit about War of the Roses, I thought it somewhat important to have seen the movie. Upon finishing, Jessica and I dialogued on our thoughts on the film and how it related to the characters of the play and societal genders roles and constructs. I also saw that Aeden was having difficulty posting the academic article she had found. After a little research, I found the .pdf copy of the piece and uploaded the file to our Group area.

Since we're the first group, there's always the worry about presenting the "right" way. I suppose we'll see tomorrow.

Ambiguity in Cat

I had a hard time answering this question outright. So I consulted the
dictionary for a quick reference:







Still somewhat perplexed, I drew a chart and settled on some thoughts:
Ambiguity=Aesthetics/Culture/Politics
Cat=Ambiguous=Resists: Gender/Sex/Class/Familial Constructs/Norm/Values/Rituals

Gender
Brick and Maggie make a couple steeped in social and personal constraints that they struggle with in different ways. On the surface, Brick exudes masculinity. He's physically built with years of football games under his belt and an unaffected demeanor that lets others know you are merely tolerated in their world. His attitude is described as having the coolness of someone who has given up the fight. That implies that he cannot be hurt by anything, essentially because there's nothing left to hurt. Brick's broken ankle and being constricted to using crutches shows physically how Brick is emotionally. He is immobile because of his desire to live in the past and drinks so he can try to forget it all. He has become a man with no ambition or courage taken to a "career" of drinking. Not so much the image of heroic football player, favored son, or husband anymore, not much of a man.

Maggie's typical role as wife eventually flips on itself too. To others, her womanhood is questionable in many respects. Aside from lacking qualities expected from very traditional familial norms, essentially the quiet servitude of a meek woman to her husband, Maggie is without child. This fact affects not just the question of legacy, but also the validity of her marriage and even her value as a woman. With Brick as impotent as he is throughout most of the play, Maggie must even take on roles typically held by the husband. It is Maggie who informs Brick of the state of things, that they will be cut off from the family's funding if something isn't done. She must and does stand out in the play because she constantly faces the truth of situations as they are and fill the void left vacant by Brick. She ultimately becomes the "bread winner" of the two as she banishes Brick's alcohol until they "earn" their inheritance.

Impartiality

Simone de Beauvoir describes the state of things as society seems to present it. A man can both describe himself by his sex and all humans with 'man.' In this way he can be both a specific party and general. In having this ‘neutral’ stance, men become the standard upon which all things are compared against. This necessarily makes women the ‘others,’ implying that they are not the norm.

She goes on to ask if there is anyone qualified to mediate over the debate. Both an angel and hermaphrodite prove to be insufficient in taking up this position. Finding no naturally impartial judge in the matter, we come back to women who know the complexities of the problem and strive to be objective in their reasoning.

These two discussions in Beauvoir's work explain the difficulty in being impartial on the matter of feminism. On one hand, a man could never completely understand the subtleties of the issue. On the other, it is hard for a woman to argue and be considered unbiased. But really being objective or partial is only the argument for the problem, not the problem itself. People are rarely impartial toward a cause, it's nearly an oxymoron. It is a fact that women are not in an equal position with men. To a high degree, men still are the norm with women the fringe. It seems that this perspective might have to be taken to the extreme in order to move the perception of 'normal.' Not having seen it, I assume Sex and the City declares itself as a feminine-centered work. Several other works push other boundaries. Commander in Chief stared a female president. It could be argued that these push only to be female counterparts for male-originating standards. I wonder how society would react to an example that was completely beyond the norm of both male and female standards. Would that upset the norm enough to seriously consider equalizing the opportunities between sexes? Or is it the wrong
way to think about the issue?

Opening Thoughts

While I'd like to take a look at the Barker text and put in a few thoughts on culture, the bookstore seems to be backordered on copies. So.. opening thoughts on the class. I think this is going to be a pretty fascinating semester. As a student of finance, I tend to be in classes that are a lot more pragmatic. Analyzing business strategies, valuing companies, developing marketing plans. Very "serious" stuff.

That's not to say that I think the issues in this class aren't serious either, I just look forward to really analyzing some material that doesn't involve spreadsheets and other forms of number/idea crunching. To be honest, I was also happy to see that this class was both tech friendly (as I've become a bit of a computer nerd) and easy (no offense, it's just that I've stacked 18 units this semester). Most importantly, though, I'm glad to finally have the chance to sit down with a group and really think about the culture that is influencing and influenced by us
and see what that all really means.

On to the movies. I was surprised how hard I found it to grasp what Anchorman was saying about gender relations and stereotypes. I've seen the movie several times and have enjoyed it, but I guess I've lumped it in with the "stupid funny" category of films that wouldn't have anything particularly relevant to say about society. Either that or I hoped the comedy didn't buy into some of the themes it perpetuated. In the clip we watched, the film seemed to say that no matter how self controlled or driven, a woman will be easily snared by feats of talent or spectacle.

Though it may be somewhat shortsighted, my overall enjoyment of the movie is higher if the scene is just a fairly weak plot point to move the film along.

I have not seen Fatal Attraction it its entirety, so this may be a shot in the dark. The film seemed to be essentially about a man who recklessly pursued his desires and became emasculated by the consequences. The first evidence of this is when Douglas cannot bring himself to admit to his affair. His weakness forces his wife to pick up the slack and ask him outright. I assume this progresses through the film up to our second clip. Somewhat ironically, Douglas' wife sends him to the kitchen to make some tea while she bathes. He does come to her rescue when the scorned lover attacks, but it is the wife who finishes her off once and for all. I found these clips made an interesting implication about women. Typically, we are conditioned to see the villains and heroes of a story as an embodiment of masculinity. We have tons of stories of men as both stalkers and killers as well as firefighters and courageous soldiers. By making Douglas neither one of these types, the film implies that women can just as easily fulfill masculine roles. If this is true, is there really much difference between masculinity and femininity? And if not, should we be surprised by this fact?