Back to my favourite subject - Big Brother and the way their personalities are constructed (check the Big Brother tag over there---> somewhere to confirm it). A few (hastily (un)constructed and) brief thoughts on gender in the house.
It's outwardly surprising (given it's 2009) that barely anyone in the house, in any series, ever manages to escape the stereotypical gender role assigned to them. Only outwardly, because if the structural thesis of the way identity is constructed in there is correct, then the easiest way (consciously or otherwise) to assimilate into the group is to fully occupy ones gendered position. In this series perhaps the most obvious example would be Lisa, whose "punk lesbian" aesthetic is at odds with her easily slipping into the role of the mother (look how she throws a protective arm around Sree, whose behaviour is obviously wrong by any standard, but to his mother he can do no wrong The question here would be why does she not do the same to Halfwit? Because he refuses the role of the son, preferring to attempt the father's role despite his complete unsuitability for such a role...). The one person we might expect to subvert her role, doesn't.
Here we can bring in Lacan's "Woman doesn't exist" to explain things. The abstract "Woman" is not a category, woman only exists via a symbolic type- mother, whore etc., consequently the women are immediately given a role to play. The men meanwhile are "free" to do what they like (in the sense that they can chose the role of "man", rather than a specific type of man. Lacan's other thesis, that "man is a woman who thinks she exists", comes into play here). Kris and Charlie seem (live feed would help here) to simply "exist" in there, almost literally doing nothing, either lounging in the garden or preening in the bathroom. Sree, in his nominations, criticised Angel for never doing any housework, yet he himself does nothing, Kris and Charlie do nothing, Marcus does some tidying, and thinks that this token gesture entitles him to lord it over everyone else.
Do Sophie and Karly, who also seemingly do little work occupy the same position? I would argue not, look at the way Marcus reduces them to their female organs. constantly making reference to their breasts, and, in a broader example, his conversation about how the house doesn't have a dumb blonde in it, before conferring that role on Sophie for her lack of horticultural knowledge.
Sree does the opposite and puts Noirin in the place of the virgin, criticising Marcus for his over sexual language, affronted that anyone can see Noirin in a sexual way. His love is a pure love, unclouded by the actuality of Noirin, hence his love blossoming so quickly and Noirin's exasperation at him.
Angel perhaps? Her ennui and alienation seems to be more fitting of a male position. And the difficulty in fully placing her could well have caused her nomination this week - she just doesn't fit. But I think she is best viewed as the negative of the stereotyping, she is not subverting her role, rather she occupies the same logic, only in reverse - she calls the other women fat, refuses the housework etc..
Perhaps the best example of how this logic can be escaped is Sara from last year's Big Brother. She was assigned the role of flirt/tease and it was by fully assuming the role that she succeeded in showing just how ridiculous the assignment was. She didn't deny it, or apologise for it, or claim she just couldn't help it, she just continued in the role, eventually forcing Rex and Darnell into such a preposterous misogyny that the constructed nature of the role was obvious for all to see - resulting in both of them being evicted before her. There is always a certain distance attached to such roles, hence the way to subvert them is not to deny or apologise for them, this is simply a way of passively accepting the roles, or to actively accept the roles (as Angel does), but to fully assume the role, to show it for what it is.
It's outwardly surprising (given it's 2009) that barely anyone in the house, in any series, ever manages to escape the stereotypical gender role assigned to them. Only outwardly, because if the structural thesis of the way identity is constructed in there is correct, then the easiest way (consciously or otherwise) to assimilate into the group is to fully occupy ones gendered position. In this series perhaps the most obvious example would be Lisa, whose "punk lesbian" aesthetic is at odds with her easily slipping into the role of the mother (look how she throws a protective arm around Sree, whose behaviour is obviously wrong by any standard, but to his mother he can do no wrong The question here would be why does she not do the same to Halfwit? Because he refuses the role of the son, preferring to attempt the father's role despite his complete unsuitability for such a role...). The one person we might expect to subvert her role, doesn't.
Here we can bring in Lacan's "Woman doesn't exist" to explain things. The abstract "Woman" is not a category, woman only exists via a symbolic type- mother, whore etc., consequently the women are immediately given a role to play. The men meanwhile are "free" to do what they like (in the sense that they can chose the role of "man", rather than a specific type of man. Lacan's other thesis, that "man is a woman who thinks she exists", comes into play here). Kris and Charlie seem (live feed would help here) to simply "exist" in there, almost literally doing nothing, either lounging in the garden or preening in the bathroom. Sree, in his nominations, criticised Angel for never doing any housework, yet he himself does nothing, Kris and Charlie do nothing, Marcus does some tidying, and thinks that this token gesture entitles him to lord it over everyone else.
Do Sophie and Karly, who also seemingly do little work occupy the same position? I would argue not, look at the way Marcus reduces them to their female organs. constantly making reference to their breasts, and, in a broader example, his conversation about how the house doesn't have a dumb blonde in it, before conferring that role on Sophie for her lack of horticultural knowledge.
Sree does the opposite and puts Noirin in the place of the virgin, criticising Marcus for his over sexual language, affronted that anyone can see Noirin in a sexual way. His love is a pure love, unclouded by the actuality of Noirin, hence his love blossoming so quickly and Noirin's exasperation at him.
Angel perhaps? Her ennui and alienation seems to be more fitting of a male position. And the difficulty in fully placing her could well have caused her nomination this week - she just doesn't fit. But I think she is best viewed as the negative of the stereotyping, she is not subverting her role, rather she occupies the same logic, only in reverse - she calls the other women fat, refuses the housework etc..
Perhaps the best example of how this logic can be escaped is Sara from last year's Big Brother. She was assigned the role of flirt/tease and it was by fully assuming the role that she succeeded in showing just how ridiculous the assignment was. She didn't deny it, or apologise for it, or claim she just couldn't help it, she just continued in the role, eventually forcing Rex and Darnell into such a preposterous misogyny that the constructed nature of the role was obvious for all to see - resulting in both of them being evicted before her. There is always a certain distance attached to such roles, hence the way to subvert them is not to deny or apologise for them, this is simply a way of passively accepting the roles, or to actively accept the roles (as Angel does), but to fully assume the role, to show it for what it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment