My Learning Analysis

Argument of the Course and My Place in the Story

The argument of this course involves reenactment in every form possible. It involves outlandish forms of duplication and new syndication. It ranges from speaking of realities as evolutions over time or new creations entirely. The blurry part occurs when you realize that nothing is newly created in the authoritative form of the understanding. Knowledge is repurposed over and over again, without reference to exact historical duplications. Evolution of mammals has developed over time as each species grew on the ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality of the genus before them. Reenactments are found everywhere, and our journey began on the most substantial level: life. The Hall of Mammals was a great exploration into the understanding of the term sensorium, making clear that reenactments have to do with shifts in perceptual ecology. It gave us a foreground for comprehending the intensity at which life is linked by past realities.

You cannot do very much with intensive definitions, which has become increasingly apparent through our studies. It is important to explore the range of all possibilities within history, education, and entertainment, allowing room for extensive definitions in all facets of this journey. In Johnson’s book “Everything bad is good for you: How today’s popular culture is actually making us smarter”, an appreciation for alternative education is paramount. Education, like many of the key concepts within our works, is something that most think of as strictly learned in a school setting. This book shifted my knowledge to refocus my attention on more casual every-day activities like video games, board games, television, and movies. This book is where I began crossing into my destination of utter perplexity. I was certain that a main focus of the class was the questioning of “real” and recognizing that reality is a construct of pre-existing phenomenons, but where did alternate forms of education (and problem solving) fit into this equation?

Our journey then moved in the direction of historical reenactments. This brought up the theme involving conventions of reality. Conventions, known as social agreements, make up the majority of what our society sees as authentic entities. Where these historical reenactments come into the picture, is the multiplicity of realities involved within these historical creations. Conventions are brought into question when visiting different historical sites. This had us thinking about the scope of authenticity and how far we could push that definition in crafting it to comprehend such dimensions of reenactments. Roth, author of “Past into Present”, complements Johnson’s work and emphasized another important chapter of our story, the importance of interactivity on measures of interpreting information. Johnson deals with this technique mostly involving technology, while Roth examines interactivity between visitors and objects.

Another chapter in our story is weighing the benefits of commercialization. In the Feminist world, most scholars do their research and write books for close to zero profit. So how can we look at multiple works of art that have applied business principles to their pro feminist masterpieces? At first, we questioned their motives, but through discussion and analysis of debating the consequences of not having these works at all, the business model made more sense. Shows that fun on PBS that we have explored like African American Lives and Frontier House, along with the National Geographic Project’s Journey of Man, articulate different forms of reenactments that would not be seem otherwise. A few more commercialized projects we have studied are Colonial Williamsburg and Jamestown. These locations or entertainment pieces have become places of entertainment first, and subjects of education second. After connecting the political debates that are found within some reenactment forms, I feel it is important to bring parts of history to the public, even if that compromises the authentic appeal. Because reenactments are a simulation of history, they are often the only form available for current understanding of past occurrences. This makes it increasingly important to garner this information in any way people are willing to express it. This concept builds on authentic verses authoritative knowledge and positions commercialized feminist projects on a unique platform that erases the opposition of authentic and authoritative knowledge, allowing them to live in synchrony.

Although we discussed the term pastpresents earlier in the course, I feel this term has been brought to life toward to the end of the story and now is here to embody everything the course stands for. Donna Haraway, author of “The Companion Species Manifesto”, uses the term naturecultures when describing how feminists tend to deconstruct nature a lot in order to say things were constructed. Pastpresents, coined by Katie King, is similar to naturecultures but more specifically uses discursive knowledge to dilute people’s needs to believe in construction. In Dogs and More Dogs, we begin to see the theory of how nature and nurture are not always in opposition and how instrumental the past is to the present. Furthermore, in Laurie R. King’s novel “The Art of Detection”, Chauncey’s book “Why marriage?” and Allison Bechdel’s graphic memoir “Fun Home”, we are able to understand how different situations can exhibit different realities although they encompass the same common theme. Pastpresents are ways in which we understand present situations with logical reference to the past. Understanding this concept has allowed me to come full circle in my journey through this course.

Especially Meaningful Books, Sites, and Videos and How They Affected Me

The book “Past into Present” by Stacy F. Roth was in the first chapter of our journey through this course. When I read her analysis of first person interpretation and how one must expresses themselves under these conditions, I began to question the logic of so many. This was similar to reading Johnson’s book, but my feelings were more extreme in this case. Historical Reenactment sites are often criticized for not accurately portraying history in proper form. However, these interpreters do everything in their power to illustrate for others what different historical periods were like. No medium can completely present the past, and that is what Roth was getting at. It finally made sense to me, there is no real. Perceptions are based on the person making the observation. We are all wired differently and our educational backgrounds have taken different paths. While Roth takes us through the pros and cons of first person interpretation and provides advice for how to stay within character, she leaves plenty of room for each person to interpret their experience on a subjective level. Roth provided me the tools to understand the level of difference behind each person’s interpretation.

The next reading I would like to discuss is Bolter and Grusin’s “Remediation”. This was a very difficult text for me for a plethora of reasons. For those reasons, I would like to speak about what the experience of reading some of this theoretical piece gave me. Since there were many terms that I was unfamiliar with, this reading gave me the opportunity to expand my vocabulary and understanding of different forms of knowledge. The connection between hypermediacy and immediacy really stuck out to me. When you look at media replications like the computer game Doom and certain Virtual Realities games that place you in contents where you forget about the ‘real’ world, Bolter and Grusin argue that “no medium, it seems, can now function independently and establish its own separate and purified space of cultural meaning” (55). Hypermediacy does not allow for one to forget what is essentially ‘real’, but immediacy supplements that by allowing visual representations that are supposed to have one forget about media forms. This is in conjunction with Roth’s description of interpreters and their relation to the past and present.

Another thing from Bolter and Grusin that was meaningful to me was the description of the entertainment industry. When new movies come out and overflow the industry with the same types of advertisements in different forms, I never understood the reasons for this. In the chapter on Networks and Remediation, it explains how each form of a product advertising a certain movie takes part of its meaning from the previous entities, but also provides a new dimension to the overall experience that the previous forms could not generate. This all has to do with repurposing substance that we already have knowledge of in our schema’s but deliberating adding to this substance in different forms. The term Gesamtkunstwerk, which we spoke about in class, is highlighted when different products allow the senses to be involved with the same ultimate understanding. This is all very new to me, because like most people, I figured the multitude of products being sold for a common production were solely economically based. After reading this source of information, I think very differently. I also formed a connection between this book and Handler and Gable’s explanation of Colonial Williamsburg because they also explained a blurring of the lines between non-profit businesses and the necessity of commercialization to be involved with producing knowledge production.

The last reading I am going to elaborate on was Laurie R. King’s novel “The Art of Detection”. I think I was attracted to this piece because it was so multifaceted. It dealt with the politics of homophobia in America and it also identified the level of shame that exists in so many. There were parts in this book where I was deeply moved, for example, when the manuscript spoke about Billy Birdsong and his lover and when Ian was talking about his love for Gilbert, even after the fact. These parts were very real to me, and identified how authentic feelings can be, no matter what the situation or the ending consequence. People try to justify different types of feelings by denouncing them wrong or criminal, but this book exemplified how true something could be in one context, when in someone else’s framework it could be completely outrageous. This book has a great amount of connections to “Fun Home” by Bechdel and Chauncey’s “Why Marriage”. People’s recollection of issues from the past, such as homophobia, strongly affects the future of that given matter. The premise that alternatives are not fake is the most significant thing I took away from this book. While some people may act in ways that are incongruent with anything we deem appropriate, that does not mean those people are wrong.

Leonardo’s Dream Machine was a movie about people recreating blueprints of two different pieces of Leonardo’s work. They attempt to build working models of the hang glider as well as a large crossbow. This film had many forms of reenactments intertwined within. First and foremost, the engineers were trying to act like Leonardo in recreating these blueprints. Second, there were mini stories throughout the film explaining aspects of Leo’s life that would be interesting to the viewer. Lastly, different people were called upon to interpret Leo’s blueprints. Multiple people tried to reenact ways that Leo would think. Outside of the different forms of reenactments in this film, it was extremely interesting the way that the engineers wanted to alter the blueprints because they thought materials today would be better simply because they were newer. This seems to be a theme within our society: the newer the reproduction material, the more authentic it seems to be. Through this example in the film, and many things in life, I think this point has been refuted and made untrue. That is the most important thing I took away from this video.

Out of all the websites we have gone to in class, there was one that stood out to me: templegrandin.com. Temple’s story is very moving and I immediately became very fascinated with her. I have always had an obsession with communicating with animals and feeling as if they could understand some part of how I was trying to communicate. Temple explains that to understand animals, you must get away from proper language. That idea is utterly connected to our course material. Proper language is what everybody believes we should communicate in, but actually people are always communicating in ways that are unfamiliar with others. Think about people hard of hearing, sign language is absolutely proper to them, but alternative to others. Or people that are color blind, they have their own understanding of shades of color completely outside of the ‘typical’ understanding. Temple Grandin helped me articulate my feelings about different types of variation. I have always strongly believed that people who are different from the ‘norm’, under any category, should not be looked upon as less than anyone else. Instead, these traits must be seen as variation in an infinite array of possibilities.

Context of a Women’s Studies Curriculum

This course helped put together a lot of things I have learned throughout my women’s studies curriculum. Our main concentrations were different than the typical class, but the overall synopsis of the course was similar in an abstract way. This seminar highlighted the importance of all living things, and made reference to them within our historical backgrounds. Women’s Studies is about making connections and becoming aware of the world around us. That common theme was articulated in multiple different books, websites, and movies throughout this semester. In my previous classes we constantly spoke about oppression and how significant discrimination is on our society. In our course we spoke about discrimination on a level of comparing authoritative and alternative and the consequences deeming things alternative solely because one is unfamiliar with them. We learned to appreciate difference and understand variation in new ways.

Constantly speaking about ‘real’ entities led us to have debates about what real actually means and that guided in our understanding of the lack of ‘real’. In comparison to the women’s studies curriculum, that could be connected to different groups of people who are ostracized because they do not fit into what society deems as ‘normal’. This course helped me understand how variation is wonderful and a world without it would be horrifying. I will take these tools forward with me when I continue my research into the world of gender studies, acknowledging the politics behind gender while illuminating the extraordinarily different.

More on My Place in the Story

I thought it was important to bring my story to all facets of this learning analysis. I hope I tackled where I was in the argument at different points of the story within this paper thus far. In this part, I hope to close out with some final thoughts and understandings. I think I brought a level of consistency to the class, as someone who would show up each week with excitement about the contents we were going to tackle that day. I was able to educate my partners about things they may have been rather unfamiliar with, like trans studies. A great part of the course was bouncing my ideas off other students and being able to share my ideas with them. I truly felt that Clarisse was so supportive of my work and it made me feel great. The other students in class had a large affect on my knowledge production throughout the course. I learned something new from each and every person.

There were often times that I felt my responses to things were a little different than most of the class. Not different as in bad, but from a varying perspective. I am not sure why that is the case, but I enjoyed being able to say something and then having people ponder a different viewpoint. Moreover, I realized how necessary it is to look at things through different perspectives. Whenever I read a work or watched a documentary and was thinking too narrowly, I always found myself with so many questions. It was when I began to look at things extensively and flexibly that I was able to form better understandings. On another note, the only thing that was a little troublesome in the course was the lack of time there was available to devote to certain pieces. I often felt like there was more I wanted to discuss with certain texts, but we only had a small amount of time together each week, so we had to move on to the next.

The greatest thing I will carry away from this experience is how real and authentic are relative to each individual. That hits home in my life because there are multiple personal battles I will continue to face with my gender expression and sexuality. I constantly have to battle the ideas of ‘real’ and ‘normal’ in every facet of my life. I can only imagine it getting more difficult as my college years come to a close and my professional life takes precedent. Thank you for such a wonderful course and I look forward to taking these new knowledge(s) with me throughout my future endeavors.

Bettina Aptheker

I was so impressed with Bettina Aptheker that I went around telling all of my friends about her for the rest of the week. I also have an English class directly after our Wednesday class, and asked my professor, who is also a History professor all about the Communist party. I wanted to know what it entailed and why it is no longer popular, I obviously am not very familiar with historical information. I bought her book and cannot wait for the summer, when I will have time to read it. She is currently a professor at University of California – Santa Cruz where she teaches an introduction to women’s studies class that is very renowned. Aptheker’s story has so many interesting twists and turns that involve things from her past, bringing to light her feelings in the present, I do not know where to even begin talking about them. Something that stood out to me while she was speaking was how vividly the pictures of harassment came into her brain after so many years. Her mind was able to reenact that trauma; even through it had not been in her conscious for decades. That is incredible. The way she explained the trouble she had with her gender was influential. She knew that she did not belong as a woman, but did not see a viable option for her to express any other gender expression. That shows how far we have come in the transgender community; the pastpresents involved with that movement are exemplified by Aptheker’s explanation of her lack of understanding for her feelings connected with gender. She was so real and inspirational in her story of near death and then her climb back into a happy state of being. I thought it was really cool that she remained teaching because her students gave her a sense of normalcy that she couldn’t find elsewhere. I look forward to incorporating the lessons she taught us that day in my learning analysis. That book is called “Intimate Politics: How I Grew Up Red, Fought for Free Speech, and Became a Feminist Rebel”.

Pastpresents – Gay Culture – Repurposing Knowledge

We spoke last class about beginning to form connections between our texts. After we spoke about “pastpresents” in relation to multiple aspects of our curricula, it really got me thinking. The term “pastpresents” was coined by Katie King, our professor, and she identifies it as “similar to feminist technoscience historian and theorist Donna Haraway’s naturecultures” but more specifically as “implosions across discursive and other realms”. The way I understand this “pastpresents” has to do with relating things in the past to current situations. And understanding that today’s situations could be exist without the blueprint from the past. Sometimes pastpresents are very similar, sometimes they have very little in common. I believe the word is very flexible and allows for many interpretations.

In the current work we have read, “The Art of Detection”, by Laurie R. King, it brings up the existence of gay awareness and acceptance in a culture that is similar to today. Through the additional manuscript in the book, it also speaks of the gay culture back in the early to mid 90’s. Looking at the gay culture as an example for “pastpresents”, the culture could be similar, vastly different, or maybe somewhere in between based on the situation. I believe “pastpresents” are subjective observations involving the past and something that is currently happening in the present. Chauncey also deals with gay culture in his book, “Why marriage? The history shaping today’s debate over gay equality”. This book also illuminates the past and how tough it was for gay couples to find a safe space. My opinion on gay culture and why it has not taken as many strides forward as it could, is because of societies ideal that anything alternative in nature is not an option because it would some-what eliminate differences between people, and while the community is looking for EQUALITY, the political sphere sees it as creating SAMENESS. They are mistaking equality for sameness.

All knowledges are repurposed. We as human beings, do not take in information and never use it again. When we learn something of the past, we bring that learning experience with us into the future. Take Colonial Williamsburg for example, when families go there on vacations, they are using the knowledge they have learned about Williamsburg through education and in the media to translate the visual experience they are currently having with that they think should be correct. They are not going there with a blank state and taking exactly what they see there as the real deal. They are putting their current experience up against their previous conceptions and forming a new idea. That is what I mean by saying all knowledges are repurposed.

Imani Henry: activist, writer, and performer.

Because of this wicked wind/storm, I got off work tonight and was able to attend Imani Henry’s workshop. He is an activist, writer, and performer who concentrates on transgender, anti-war, and anti-racist activism. Rather than the typical lecture, he led a discussion. It was cool because he initially went around the room and had everyone there state their name, pronoun preference, and what they were passionate about. There was a wide array of interests from trafficking, to labor laws, lesbians of color, to trans visibility. It was a very diverse group of people within the LGBTQ community.

There were issues brought up about racism and sexuality in our campus. To be more specific, recently in the Diamondback, President Mote dismissed the reality that our university grounds used to be affiliated with some type of slave quarters. Once he realized he was wrong with so effortlessly dismissing this reality, his office wrote a letter of apology, but it did not even come directly from him. I understand people can make mistakes, but its how one handles a mistake that truly determines who they are. Another frustration we spoke about within our campus community was surrounded around homophobia. A man involved with the physics department got a list of people within the Price Alliance and wrote them e-mails with very nasty things. Comments to the extent of ‘this is your choice, stop it with that behavior’. Although the LGBT equality office confronted this man and took a stand, the administration did not back them up and nothing was done of the matter. These two examples are things that perpetuate institutionalized racism and homophobia. Until people, in large numbers, take serious stands against these acts, they will continue.

Imani informed us of May Day which is May 1st. Not many people were aware of the significance of this day, but its concerned with labor movements throughout the world. It is much more popular in Communist countries, but its gaining ground in the United States. He said there were about a million people in NYC last year who did not attend work and marched on the streets. It’s awesome that so many people were coming together for a common cause.

There were a few major things I took away from the discussion tonight. For one, it is important to form coalitions between organizations and people you do not necessarily associate with. Those people can bring insight and agendas to your intellectual projects that you cannot gain from your typical circle. Another thing I gained through conversation after the ‘workshop’ was the importance of making space for your ideas and thoughts, even when that space has not been previously developed. It’s very difficult to talk in a room full of people when you feel so different than the majority speaking. It’s easy to go with the flow and relate to everyone who is speaking up, but going against the gain… Are we taught how to do that? It’s really important to take a stand for something you believe in, and I believe we all can become better at verbally expressing our ideas and thoughts. Lastly, I want to write a little about apathetic people. He brought it up tonight, and how our campus, and people around the world are generally apathetic toward feminist and gender issues. I recently took a personality test for this conference I attended at the end of March, and I received this level that was extremely irritated by apathetic people. I cannot understand them, I get so frustrated. Be passionate about something, anything! All I am saying is try to make this world a better place. Even if it’s the smallest thing, I’m not saying to go out and create world peace, but at least, desire for it.

Although this does not translate exactly into our course curriculum, I think there are multiple correlations in what I have discussed in this blog and things we have discussed in class. Such as race, sexuality, feminist visibility, and activism work. These issues are very important to the feminist community, and it was really beneficial to look at so many different issues within one discussion.

Gotta love dogs

Dogs and More Dogs was a documentary that was right up my ally. I have an affinity for dogs. My friends often find my desire to speak to dogs and act with them as if they were people very strange. Unfortunately for them, it does not stop me from communicating with them, verbally and non-verbally. I found it astonishing that dogs come in more shapes and sizes than any other mammal on the planet. That is incredible to think about. I have always had the same question that this video was surrounded around: how did all these different types of dogs come from wolves? The way the video explained how it was a unique version of “survival of the fittest” really makes sense. If you were to put food out in a field with people working in it, and certain animals were scared to be around the people, those that were not scared would have the advantage. That is what occurred with these wolves. The ones that were not afraid would get the food and bring it back for their offspring. These more ‘friendly’ wolves would then breed with others similar to them and they would teach their offspring the importance of being ‘friendly’.

The next question in the video was how did all these different dogs come from wolves who all looked relatively similar to each other? Also, curly tails and patchy coats are found in dogs, but wolves do not have those genes. The way they looked at the Fox’s and came to realize that there is a correlation between adrenaline and coat color is so fascinating. Who would have thought of that? So cool! Also dogs may look very different on the outside, but their DNA is all very similar to each other.

Some of the things they did with the dogs, like show one with a herd of sheep, was interesting. Wherever dogs grow up, they are about to assimilate and be comfortable with that group of specie.

Dogs are a huge part of our culture today. They are wo/mans best friend. People love dogs because they are able to be socialized as puppies and therefore grow up to love you equally as much. This movie brought together the nature part of how dogs came to exist and the culture part that is ever-present in society today. Although the father, who was a genetist, did not love the puppy they got at first, it was evident that by the end of the film he had a very strong relationship with the dog.

Gender Reenactments Are All Encompassing: ‘Traditional’ Men, Queer and

I thoroughly enjoyed the writing process involved with this essay. My initial thought of a topic did not do justice to what I wanted to say using the umbrella word “reenactment”. After much thought and consideration, I decided to concentrate on the plethora of gender reenactments rather than just the heteronormative man and woman. Once I began to develop my idea, it was easy to begin writing and finding research. I was rolling with thoughts and ideas and very seldom would I hit writers block. I hope you all enjoyed your writing experience as much as I did.
—————————————————————————————-
“Gender is the social significance of sex. It refers to the constellation
of characteristics and behaviors which come to be differentially
associated with and expected of men and women in a particular
society, our notions of masculinity and femininity. Such differences
may really exist, or they may be only supposed to exist” (Burr, 11).

Introduction

Every reenactment is a new reality and it is only through repetition that society believes a single ‘real’ exists. We have to work together in understanding that there is no original and no final destination. The kind of person you are is the kind of person you are meant to be. Our identities are pieces of art that are being sculpted by every new decision we choose to make. Gender is nothing more concrete than a work in progress.

My paper is looking This paper looks specifically at gender reenactments and not the intersections between gender performance and sexuality. I believe that gender is too often thought of as dependent on ones sexuality. For that reason, I would like to illuminate the idea that gender is reenacted independent of sexuality on many accounts. Gender reenactment is individualistic in nature and can be found in many different forms based on a diverse group people. My research focuses on gender reenactments in different populations of masculine identified bodies. I will be specifically looking at ‘traditional’ men, queer/effeminate straight men, transmen, and cross-dressing men.

Attention cannot be given to this issue without drawing attention to the magnification of problems within the discourse used to identify gender. When trans and queer/effeminate bodied men live what they think of as ‘real’ lifestyles, it becomes very problematic when people around them are unsure of the pronouns or adjectives to use to describe their existence. People’s actions are part of a chain that is linked to the vector of discourse. Actions are an array of many different aspects that actually stem from one dimension. Actions alone cannot create discourse, but together they are dependent upon one another (Butler, 187). Society must come to terms with the diversification of reenactment in gender and except the possibility of difference within previously constructed norms. Pushing the limits of people’s preconceived notions of what an authentic man and woman is, and how they speak about them, will aid in the acceptance of non-normative gender performances in the future. It is important that we do not reminisce about times where these issues were left in the dark. It is up to our generation of people to beg the destruction of this idea and move forward with promising knowledge.

For some of us it is a smooth and effortless run into the direction of ‘traditional’ masculinity or femininity. For others, which will be addressed later in my essay, it becomes an unfair nightmare (not in the sense of scary and horrible, but daunting and confusing) that pushes certain individuals into groups of people that constantly begin with the prefix ‘non’: non-normative, non-traditional, non-conforming. The prefix ‘non’ is symbolic of negative, wrong, and also alternative in our culture. At what point do queer and effeminate men, cross-dressing men, and transmen become inclusive to the authoritative group? The discourse constantly used to speak about these individuals is problematic and perpetuates the ‘other’ category so often associated with these groups of people. We must help the nightmare come to an end for these individuals that make a decision not to continuously copy what those generally believe as ‘original’.

I would like to transcend the idea that while gender may be socially constructed, there are multiple levels of gendered performance. It is without question that our society believes gender reenactments are a matter of ‘traditional’ men and ‘traditional’ women. However, the only reason for this strict mandate from society is the coercion from those in authoritative roles. Educators, parents, and religious leaders pressure, force, and sanction children based on what they believe are ‘real’ gender expressions. What is identified as ‘real’ gender reenactments are socially constructed, “we construct from the values, images, and prescriptions we find in the world around us” (Kimmel 87).

We tend to live these material truths of man and woman as though they are absolute entities. This assembles the majority of the population into a box that reenacts gender performance in a heteronormative way, fearing they will be ostracized from society otherwise. Although people want to find a stable reference point in terms of how to perform gender, through my research, it will be shown that it is impossible to fit characteristics of people into sharp dichotomous identities. Judith Butler is a renowned scholar in gender theory. Central to her argument is a “conviction that culture is capable of producing ontological (ways of being) and epistemological (ways of knowing) frames of reference which are so powerful that they congeal into the apparent invariance and irreducibility of material reality” (Kirby, 23).

‘Traditional’ Men

“Society is a masked ball, where every one hides his real character, and reveals it by hiding.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s quote is symbolic of the ‘traditional’ masculinity men reenact in our society today. Boys are taught they must have a tough exterior and an even stronger interior. They are taught emotions are for girls, or even worse, for sissies. These men end up living their lives in total conformation to the blueprint laid out by previous people continuing to hide behind the ‘original’ or the copy that so many believe is ‘real’. Differences between men and women must be sharply emphasized in order for these men to symbolize complete masculinity. Feminine traits have to be kept behind locked doors in which these men have swallowed the keys. Without following these preconceived measures, weakness would be derived and these men would be deemed as non-masculine. Since femininity and masculinity are in such opposition when most people define the characteristics of either gender, for a man to be labeled as non-masculine could have a long-term affect on the way he is interpreted by society.

Everything begins at a very young age when speaking about gender reenactments. There is virtually no aspect of life that is absent of explicitly denoting what a ‘traditional’ man should do or be in certain situations. From choosing colors such as blues and greens, instead of pinks and reds (hence the dichotomous nature) to playing with soldiers instead of dolls, the course of action recommended by society is being implanted into young boys. It is these boys who follow the recommendations that grow up to exhibit the characteristics that are so prevalent in our society and define the ‘real’ level of masculinity that is acceptable. Let it be said, if men grew up this way and did not seem to conform so exponentially, their identity would not be of interest in this essay. Although ‘traditional’ masculinity undermines what feminists are trying to eliminate, my problem with ‘traditional’ masculinity is more about exclusion of other masculine identified reenactments.

Furthermore, ‘traditional’ boys are taught and fully participate in reciprocating later on the differences in jobs and careers between ‘real’ men and ‘others’. Another dimension that is embedded into these young boys are the roles ‘real’ men play in the family structure (Burr, 2). ‘Traditional’ men know that in order to reenact their gender appropriately they must be the monetary provider in the household and also the final level of authority when making important decisions. Paying the bills, handling the taxes and taking care of repair work around the house are aspects of masculinity to these men that characterize their ‘real’ identity. Actually, there has recently been a small shift in the overall understanding in the roles of men and women in the household and workplace.

Men who reenact masculinity in ‘traditional’ ways exhibit intense efforts to pass as ‘authentic’. The modern ‘traditional’ man is asked (metaphorically speaking) by society to revolve their life around football, indie pop music and male ‘general interest’ or ‘lifestyle’ magazines such as loaded, FHM, and Maxim (Wheaton, 193). There are many dimensions of sports that bring out the qualities in men that represent ‘authentic’ masculine gender reenactments. The competitive nature of athletics brings out an intense level of spirit within these men that is typically associated with ‘real’ masculinity. In addition to the intense spirit, being a fan of athletics brings out a desire in men to compete in every aspect of their life. ‘Traditional’ men tend to encompass this ideal of ‘competitive individualism’ that manifests in their gender reenactments (Wheaton, 205). These men are taught by society that they must always be stronger, quicker, faster, and more self-reliant than the ‘others’ around them. This causes ‘traditional’ men to exhibit a great deal of effort in striving to be the person they think must always portray.

In these men’s attempt to conform to society, they are actually testifying to the knowledge that has been given to them, rather then transforming into the person they choose to be. In an effort to uphold ‘authentic’ masculine gender reenactments, ‘traditional’ men are responding to the past with accuracy but complicating their future existence. If these men ever choose to transform slightly from their hard exterior shell, their level of manhood will be in jeopardy because in following the leaders, they have not joined the coalition to help transform the assumption that men can only reenact gender in one certain way.

Queer and Effeminate Straight Men

There is a population of males that do not act out the ‘traditional’ script of masculinity that has already been written for them. Instead of society identifying these men as people who are not afraid to expose their true self, they are often looked upon as projecting an identity as homosexual. People try to make sense of queer and effeminate men’s reenactment of gender by labeling them gay. These qualities are not interconnected and their manhood should not be brought into jeopardy because of the way in which they reenact masculinity.

Those who purposely decide not to conform and others who simply cannot “do” hegemonic masculinity are sectioned into a box that encompasses unacceptable behaviors. In our society, “to act outside the idealized image of the hetero-masculine is to be suspect” (Heasley, 112). Many men who identify as queer or effeminate do not associate sexuality with that distinction of their gender. While these men disrupt the construction of hetero-normative masculinity, they also breakdown the seemingly ‘obvious’ characteristics of gay and straight males in the process. They help develop a spectrum of gender reenactments that are visible to people who may only associate queer lifestyles with homosexuality.

Such men tend to use their hands when they talk, become excited and enthusiastic when sharing ideas and even have a high-pitched voice when exciting moments occur (Heasley, 109). In addition to crying more often than the ‘traditional’ man, these men are more open about their emotions and participate in social circles with women who share topics that are often more appealing to those that are female-bodied. Based on my research, queer and effeminate men do not care a lot about sports, they identity as feminists, and they greet male friends with kissing and hugging. While these traits may typically be rendered as anything but a model of masculinity, these men defy the critics and reenact their individual masculinity in a way (not an alternative way, just different) that is self-developed.

Queer and effeminate men are not afraid to extend the boundaries of masculinity and therefore see no hesitation in reenacting their identity as personally contrived (individualistic to each) rather than preconceived (universal as a whole). A 25-year-old heterosexual male discussed his intentional effort to move into queer identity through conscious nonconforming behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs:

“I think of myself as less masculine – no, that’s not right, I think of
myself as more masculine than traditional males. I mean, I can
express my masculinity (and heterosexuality) in a wider range of
ways than maybe most men can…This sort-of leaves me feeling
sorry for how narrowly many straight men experience their masculinity
and their sexuality (Heasley, 113).”

The distinction between who is more masculine is legitimate. Many would argue that the most masculine of men present themselves with the typical hegemonic masculine ideals, but how do we distinguish upon what is ‘real’? Original is nonexistent, it is only through copying the same thing over and over again that we create this image of reality.

There are many categories of queer identities that people use to understand queer and effeminate identified men. One of the most common is the stylistic straight identified queer. These men purposely take on a presentation of gay male culture, but have no connection to the sexual orientation having to do with that performance. They generally have stylish hair and wear very fashionable clothing. They reenact masculinity very different than the ‘traditional’ male. Many women are attracted to these types of men because they are perceived to have a more sensitive approach to life. These men help make it more difficult for the general public to infer sexual orientation from stylistic cues (Heasley, 122). This reinforces my central argument that illustrates the spectrum of gender reenactments.

The most noted of these men is the British soccer star David Beckham. He has many queer-identified characteristics, but also poses as a masculine man very interested in sports. He gets his nails polished, openly attends gay bars, and publicly advocates gay male culture. While Beckham is the most noted of celebrity figures in this category, there are a few others that come to mind. Marylan Manson wears makeup and dresses in tight outfits that reflect something similar to women’s clothing while also posing as completely heterosexual in his sexual desires (Heasley, 122). Again, reinstating no correlation between gender reenactment and sexual orientation. Even actors like Eric McCormack, who plays Will on the hit television show “Will and Grace” is seen as having characteristics that would identity his gender reenactment as queer. He is a straight man who understands the level of gender he presents as defying those ‘normative’ ways in which he was taught to conform.

Another way the general public tries to fit queer and effeminate men’s reenactment of gender into a category that makes sense to them is what they describe as “males living in the shadow of masculinity”. These men are thought of as the quiet, shy guys who do not replicate the dominant ideals that are connected to ‘traditional’ masculinity. Some of these men may fear that if they do speak up, they will be labeled as gay, while others just prefer to listen and take in social environments rather than take over them. Behind closed doors “such males may take on a nonhegemonic male appearance or behavior such as talking seriously about homosexuality, or they may cross-dress in front of a girlfriend, or talk cute/sweet using nonmasculinized language when in bed with their female partner…” (Heasley, 124). These men are often drawn to tears because they have trouble with the constrictive nature of the hetero-masculine ideal.

Queer and effeminate men are able to be themselves outside of societal regulations. In an attempt to be true to their gender performance, queer and effeminate men find themselves in a narrow space. As social deviants, they are reenacting gender in a way that allows them to recognize the self in relation to what is (Heasley, 115). Masculinity has no significance in our society without providing a face to understand the definition. When men reconstruct this ‘traditional’ definition of masculinity, it opens up the playing field and makes room for a potential gender continuum. A gender continuum would be extremely beneficial to the future reenactments of gender and society’s distinction upon what is ‘real’ verses what is alternative.

Cross-dressing Men

Why is it that women can put on their male-partner’s clothing and look cute and comfortable while men who occasionally dress in their female-partner’s clothing look freakish and unconceivable? Heterosexual women have been reenacting masculinity in small doses for all of time. When women tend to do things masculine they are seen in a completely different light than when men tend to do feminine things. The ramifications of these men who would like to dress in women’s clothing are unfair. It is unfair because there is not an even consequence for women who perform the same act and more importantly, it is unfair because our society does not allow room in masculinity or femininity for these individuals to exist as ‘real’ men or women. There is a large population of men who are married to women and continue to cross-dress on occasion. I will concentrate on this population.

Every human has aspects of femininity and masculinity that are hidden behind their exterior until they decide to let their true colors show through. Men who reenact femininity by cross-dressing on certain occasions feel that it brings out their feminine self. Unlike women who like to slum around in men’s clothing, men cannot do the same in women’s clothing. Since men are not able to receive any type of validation from their peers in relation to having a feminine side, some men decide they would like to expose an extreme level of femininity through their exterior appearance. These men are not less masculine than their counterparts who never put on a piece of women’s clothing in their lives. They work in construction, as police officers, stockbrokers, doctors, and at your local grocery store. These men grow facial hair when they are not dressed as women, they lift weights, and they are married to women. No part of them becomes ‘unreal’ because they enjoy expressing another side of who they are.

Unfortunately, heterosexual cross-dressing men have been hidden in our society because they are very fearful of people speculating about their masculinity based on their gender performance. Because of their fear, these men feel the necessity to reenact masculinity to an extreme degree that is incongruent with how they actually feel. When they constantly feel the need to act hyper masculine, the feminine side of their existence gets pushed deeper and deeper into the closet. This causes these men to want a break from the hypermasculine rituals they partake in on a daily basis. They feel being a man is tiring and exhausting while being a woman is more comfortable (Bloom, 78). Although that perpetuates the dichotomy within our gender system, we must take those distinctions at face value for now. These men are pushed into reenacting masculinity in a way they feel uncomfortable, because they are in constant fear that their ‘hidden’ identity will be revealed.

While cross-dressing men are dressed as women they prefer to go by a different name and be treated in a different way. Cross-dressers feel enjoyment while dressing as women. They use words like glamorous and lovely to describe their reenactments of femininity. Cross-dressing is not a sickness, but rather a representation of other aspects of a man’s personality that are hidden for the majority of the time (Bloom 83-84).

Cross-dressers are not men who want to transition to be women. They are men who enjoy reenacting their femininity in an outward manner. There is nothing freakish or weird about men dressing as women. It is not women’s clothing that is outrageous to people, or any aspect of the material appearance. The sole reason for the stigma of cross-dressers is connected to the misguided understanding that society clings to when it comes to gender reenactment. The general public does not understand men who do not act accordingly with what they perceive as ‘traditional’ masculinity.

When looking at different reenactments of men, it is very important to realize that cross-dressers “are not women, and they are not trying to be women” (Bloom, 78). This goes back to understanding that there is no correct way to perform gender. While these individuals are men who perform masculinity during the majority of their lives, they also expose a different side of themselves when they are men performing as women. In math we are taught that something must always equal itself. So when you look at gender, we are socialized to believe that men must equal masculinity and can never be equated to femininity. Cross-dressers have the courage to live in a world that does not understand their equation. They reenact their masculinity in a way that includes an outward degree of normative feminine reenactment, but essentially, they are creating their own level of masculine reenactment that encompasses aspects of femininity.

Transmen

“I am man, hear me roar”.

The words above are commonly used throughout the media to indicate the dominance of men in our culture. It is used in contrast to women, whom obviously do not fit the rigid characteristics that ‘roar’ connotes. But what about transmen, do they exemplify the same characteristics associated with ‘roar’ as the typical man? For the most part, the answer to that question is no. Transmen do not try and reenact the ‘traditional man’ in performing their masculinity. These self-proclaimed men desire not to authenticate the original form of masculinity, but they choose to reenact their gender in a way that allows them to take the best of all worlds. Therefore, warranting change in the dichotomous look at ‘real’ men and ‘real’ women.

Transmen are looking to “reshape social and cultural understandings of masculinity” (Califia, 434). Since this group of individuals is reshaping an authentic identity into something that is their own, infinite possibilities are in reach. Sometimes these individuals think of themselves as neither man nor woman, but our society begs for one to be chosen. Since transmen tend to outwardly reenact a degree of masculinity that society is comfortable with, the easiest thing for this population of people to do is identity as a man. Leslie Feinberg, a revolutionary figure in the trans liberation (also the title of one of her books), says it best: “ I am neither man nor woman, but the circle encompassing both” (Feinberg, 75). Many transmen do not want to give up their socialization as women completely. Although, while outwardly displaying compassion, sensitivity, and a nurturing mentality may inhibit transmen from passing as ‘real’ men to the outside world, they feel it is important to their reenactment of masculinity, bringing to light the contrast in the existence of ‘traditional’ masculinity.

The multiplicities of reenacting masculinity properly for transmen are very different across the board. Testosterone is usually the first step many transmen take in transitioning to male full time. Testosterone allows these men to reenact their gender in a way that is more congruent with their inner self. Throughout the first few months on testosterone men begin to grow facial hair, gain muscle mass, get deeper voices and have redistribution in body fat. These are all extremely important to transmen in reenacting their gender because before these changes are made in appearance, the only way to ‘pass’ as a man is to wear baggy clothing, sunglasses, and speak only when spoken to. Some transmen are able to pass without taking testosterone or having any surgeries. These men naturally have a physique that people associate with ‘traditional men’ and, therefore allows them to reenact masculinity without having to transition their physical body.

Another important aspect to transitioning men in their effort to reenact masculinity is chest surgery. While testosterone really brings out some masculine features in transmen’s bodies, it is difficult to completely pass as male when they still have these lumps underneath their shirt. Transmen constantly feel like people are gazing from their chest to their face to their midsection and thinking ‘I just don’t get it’ (Califia, 435). In our society, the most obvious aspect of identifying someone as a woman is whether that person has breasts or not. Transmen eagerly await a time where they can afford to get their breasts removed and finally feel congruency between their body and their soul. While some transmen do move forward with bottom surgery, it is the most uncommon procedure in all transitioning people, men and women. I will not discuss the importance of bottom surgery because it does not seen as important to the population overall in reenacting a male gender identity.

I explained above the importance of testosterone and chest surgery to reenacting a masculine physique in the transmen community because those aspects are what seems most significant to this group of people. In contrast to ‘traditional males’, you may note that transmen do not feel an affinity toward acting macho or asserting their dominance. Most of these men define their identity as male because our society does not have the vocabulary to define a person of this nature. On the outside, transmen feel more comfortable with the stereotypical re-flections of a male projection, but inside, they feel a mixture of femininity and masculinity. There are transmen on far sides of the spectrum of gender in one direction or another (note one or the other), but most fit somewhere in the middle. In contrast to ‘traditional men’, reenacting masculinity to transmen does not mean rejecting all things feminine and retraining their bodies to “sit, walk, talk, and act in specific ways that are deemed ‘masculine’ by a society that is hell-bent on preventing any variance in the gender roles that were set up specifically for the purpose of maintaining status quo” (Kailey, 41).

Conclusion

There is a theorist named Albert Bandura who came up with the social learning theory. I think that theory has a lot to do with our society’s hesitation in recognizing how gender is a work in progress and no part of it is original. People are taught through reinforcement the essential relationship between what is right and what is wrong in regard to gender. The behaviors people learn from are by no means what is right for everyone, it is just what is seen as right in their circumstance. When someone performs a gender that is congruent with what other people believe is right, they are rewarded. When someone performs a gender that is incongruent with what other people around them believe is right, they are ostracized. Through that negative reinforcement, these individuals tend to change their behavior until they find comfort in responses from their social circles. I believe that is an explanation of why only 2% of our population publicly identity as something that is outside of the typical reenactments of men and women.

Every person would like to be able to perform outwardly the feelings they have within themselves. Some people are extremely masculine and others may be entirely feminine. There are individuals that might never feel the desire to outwardly reenact aspects of the ‘opposite’ gender by which they are perceived by the general public. Other people, like the ones discussed in this essay, have to deal with a society in which they are deemed destructive to others and labeled different. Generally speaking, different is not always something negative, but in this case, society does look negatively upon these gender expressions and it has become incomprehensible and unjustifiable why.

I ask the people with these hurtful attitudes, why it is so horrible to expand your knowledge of what a man and woman are? My only logical explanation is that they are afraid. I understand we are asking these people to question everything they have always taken for grated when it comes to ways that people reenact gender. For that reason, validation of their fears is essential in order to begin the education process. It all begins with understanding there are many different ways to reenact gender; of the four I spoke about, each person who classifies themselves under any of these labels, would all have a unique way that they distinguish their femininity from their masculinity. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

References

Bloom, Amy. Normal: Transsexual CEOs, Crossdressing Cops, and Hermaphrodites
with attitude. New York: Vintage Books, 2002.
Burr, Vivien. Gender and Social Psychology. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Butler, Judith. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Califia, Patrick. “Manliness”. The Transgender Studies Reader. Ed. Susan Stryker and
Ed. Stephen Whittle. New York: Routledge, 2006. 434-438.
Feinberg, Leslie. Transliberation: Beyond pick or blue. Boston: Beacon Press, 1998.
Glover, David, and Cora Kaplan. Genders. New York: Routledge, 2000.
Green, Jamison. Becoming a Visible Man. Vanderbilt University Press, 2004.
Heasley, Robert. “Crossing the Boarders of Gendered Sexuality: Queer Masculinities of
Straight Men.” Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality. Ed. Chrys Ingraham. New York: Routledge, 2005. 109-129.
Hollibaugh, Amber. My Dangerous Desires: A Queer Girl Dreaming her way home.
Durham: Duke University Press, 2000.
Howell, Clare, ed. Joan Nestle ed., and Riki Wilchins ed. Genderqueer:Voices From Beyond the Sexual Binary. Los Angeles: Alyson Books, 2002.
Kailey, Matt. Just Add Hormones: An Insider’s Guide to the Transsexual Experience.
Boston: Beacon Press, 2005.
Kimmel, Michael. The Gendered Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Kirby, Vicki. Judith Butler Live Theory. New York: Continuum International Publishing
Group, 2006.
Wheaton, Belinda. “Lifestyles sport magazines and the discourses of sporting
masculinity.” Masculinity and Men’s Lifestyle Magazine. Ed. Bethan Benwell.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003. 193-218

Begging to understand.

I’m sorry I have been out of touch for so long. These past few weeks have been some of the most unpredictable in my life. I would like to ask each person who reads this blog to think about something that makes them feel ALIVE (something that is spectacular to you) and then think about how lucky we all are to be here. With our families and our friends. I do not typically believe in religion, but recently I wish I could find a way to understand why such horrible things happen to such wonderful people. I wish I was able to connect bad and good things with a higher power and tell myself that he/she has a reason for everything they do. Unfortunately, I have not found that higher being, yet.

Families are full of living history. A family who lives under one roof does not just live their lives doing things that are part of their immediate family but they also do things that are part of generations before them. A daughter may reenact her grandmothers laugh. A grandson may grow up and want to be a lawyer in the same city his great-grandfather was a lawyer in before he was born. People often do things in families that are relevant to some other time period. This is what makes each family so unique in its culture and relationships.

When somebody passes away, there are millions of memories that are left inside the hearts of so many. These memories can serve as ways to reenact your loved ones spirit and relive the history you have shared with that person. These memories are very ‘real’ and although they are not reality anymore, they are still very meaningful.

We have spoken a lot about authentic verse authoritative where reenactments are concerned. Besides the idea of alternative being completely subjective, I think it is wrong for society as a whole to decipher something that is obviously real to many as alternative. You can argue that memories are the most ‘real’ thing you have when it comes to people who are not still with us. The ‘real’ is gone for now but the new ‘real’ will remain with us forever.

I just had this on my mind and thought it was somewhat applicable to our course. See you all soon.

Some thoughts on our conversations

The framework of a convention is something that is socially agreed upon. We are taught throughout our life that reality is the given thing, the totally all encompassing ‘real’ thing. BUT, when you begin to question those notions, it is apparent that reality is constructed. An example we spoke about in class was how so many people speak about sex as being the ‘real’ definitive measure and gender may be constructed. It is only with recognition of difference and deviation from the ‘norm’ that we realized both are manipulated and in essence, created.

The idea that people do not like to watch other people who are not like them selves is an interesting theory. For instance, when you think about television programming, most of the population enjoy watching things that somewhat resembles their lifestyle. Speculating about the cause of that brings up more connections to conventional ideologies and authenticity. People who only enjoy programming and gaming that is relative to what they perceive as their reality, perpetuates this ongoing cycle of definitive and absolute realities.

When we look at our studies of historical reenactments (and other forms of reenactment), the idea of conventions of reality is always brought up. We decide what ‘should have been’ and ‘shouldn’t have been’, based on our perception of what we agree upon. This we that is spoken about is problematic in itself. There are obviously different groups of people who have different perceptions of the past. Who is it that deciphers social agreements? Doesn’t there have to be multiple? With that being said, there are obviously multiple realities that would be real to specific groups within the same social society.

There were a few connections that I found between Johnson’s book and Roth’s book. Roth discussions how integrated interpreters must be with all facets of their emphasis in history. Similarly, Johnson’s text highlights the intricacy of television, movies, and videogames. Both of these texts emphasize the importance and significance of doing more than one thing at a certain time. They discuss the concept of interactivity. Roth between visitors and objects and Johnson with mostly technology.

On a different note, I looked up a review on Handler and Gable’s book “The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg”. It was reviewed by Michael T. Carroll of Highlands University in New Mexico. The review articulated the problem Colonial Williamsburg has had with making their destination politically congruent. It has a duel character as educational institution and business concern. They are constantly finding a way to keep consumers satisfied, which plays to the commercialization appeal and takes away from the educational model that was previously the main concern.

I wrote this in word last week and thought I published it on here, but I guess I only saved it. Sorry folks for posting this a week late.

BIG ideas

In my class on Reenactments and New Knowledge, we have been given the opportunity to choose our topic for a paper assignment. Below are a few of my thoughts for this upcoming project. The first one was something that just came to me as a gut reaction to our assignment. The second is a mix between research I have found and an idea that my friends and I have discussed for a while now. The third was found 100% based on research. Please let me know your thoughts on them, I would love to get some feedback.

1) The authenticity in sex and gender; specifically dealing with the importance of authenticity in the lives of transgendered people.

I would like to understand the differences in perspective, terminology and definitions (extensive and intensive) between people of different sexes, genders, sexual orientations, race, and class. Trying to associate patterns of recreating gender between demographics and cultural trends. How does this affect the transgendered community? Will they ever be able to avoid oppression? Jamison Green, author of Becoming A Visible Man, once said in a speech I heard that the biggest privilege in being a complete man was the opportunity to walk down the street without having people stare at him to wonder if he was male or female. Since he has gone through the complete transformation, everyone visibly and mentally depicts him as a male embryo. I would look in to the specific desires of transitioning MTF & FTMs. Which traits do they see as essential to reenact male/female in a way that will allow their silhouettes and character to be unquestioned. Is the price (monetarily, physically, and emotionally) of duplicating (the transgenered community would frown upon duplicating) an already definitive entity worth the difficult barriers of entry into the opposing gender? And lastly, because a person looks authentic and reenacts the stereotypical gender roles you prescribe to that certain sex, does that NOW allow them to be ‘real’?

2) Gender and Costume
I found some material identifying the main reason women and men dress in costume. Supposedly, women dress in materials that stimulate fantasies for them while men dress in costume to represent historical figures. I have an hypothesis that has been on my mind for years, and this theory relates very well to it. I have spoken to a lot of females who have told me when they were between the ages of 3-10 (which are the years before society reprimands you for not abiding to stereotypes) they ALWAYS dressed up as male personalities for Halloween. Disclosure: these are not all masculine females, although a large percentage of these females happen to be homosexual. Obviously my population was not large enough to get any statistical observations, but what does that add to the current nature/nurture debate? When given the opportunity to reenact anything, why do young girls (do they have to be girls?) who later identify as lesbian/gay/queer have similar tendencies in costume choice? Fantasy perhaps?

3) I found a lot of material about victims of traumatic experiences becoming reenactors; Especially those diagnosed with Post Thaumatic Stress Disorder. The interesting part in this is that their reenactments are unconscious. These people tend to follow a script originally written by someone or something else. Since the experience is nonverbal and sometimes unknown, they have a very hard time editing the material in the brain that continues to reproduce images. Traumatic reenactment has been defined as living in the unremembered past.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Since everyone who has spoken about Johnson’s Everything Bad Is Good For You in my class has more or less agreed with his argument and gained a new found appreciation for television, video/computer games, board games, movies, etc., I am going to play devils advocate. I did enjoy his book and the difference in perspective. I want to come from a different attitude for the fun of opposing standpoints.

There were a few glaring problems I had. Contradiction. Let’s start with that. Johnson writes this book with confidence that his ideas will help other people gain new knowledge and/or be entertained by different theories. How could he question the desire of anyone to embark on an adventure utterly choreographed by another person (20)? Johnson claims that the big problem with books is that they follow a fixed linear path. And further, this problem teaches children that they must always follow, rather than lead. Be submissive, rather than participatory.
What about all of the vocabulary and intellect you can gain by reading? Can it really be considered a submissive act? The connotation attached to some of the adjectives Johnson used places reading on an unequal playing field to other means of education.

I agree with Johnson when he says “the ability to analyze and recall the full range of social relationships in a large group is just as reliable a predictor of professional success as your SAT scores or your college grades” (109). He is describing the reality T.V. show The Apprentice. But as he stated before, there are many other means to acquire those same abilties without becoming addicted to primetime television (which has caused an increase in the level of obesity in our country).

The number of bloggers in the United States has reached the audience size of prime-time television. I see how this could be a positive thing for reasons he states in the book. But cant this cause harm to innocent readers coming across traumatic personal diaries? The problems this could cause for children messing around on computers is endless. To have millions of personal diaries on the Internet for anyone to see seems like a creepy idea, even if it does cause people to “probe and master new environments” (121).

These views are not all my own, I just wanted to throw something different your way.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Lastly, I wanted to speak a little more about Stacy F. Roth’s book Past into Present. When reading chapter 4, “Before Interpretation Starts – Planning, Research, and Development”, I felt connections being made. Individual interpreters are not people who present this art as a hobby. They are masters in their specific field, just like every other scholar or professional. Interpreters “need a repertoire of ideas, activities, stories, and skills that fulfill program objectives and create a deeper understanding of the historical era for the visitor” (41). They are not just re-creating something they read in a book, they are reenacting what they feel was the reality of that time. Those reality changes based on the individual. Things that are significant for one interpreter may seen completely arbitrary to another. The importance of education and on-the-job experience is something that is detrimental for all.

Not actors, “interactive historical roleplay”!

The two books we looked into for this week take different approaches in examining historic sites and museums that bring history to life. The book Past into Present by Stacy F. Roth is directed toward people who are not familiar with historic reenactment sites. Skimming through the book, it is apparent that she wants to include her reader in aspects of these sites that can be understood by all. Specifically, people unfamiliar with reenactment sites at all. In the first chapter of the book, she “establishes definitions for roleplay and related activities based on the terminology of interpreter themselves” (9). I really enjoyed how she made reenactments relevant to anybody, whether that be preparing an old recipe or hiking an old trail. She used the term “connective chord” in expressing the versatility of living history and I thought that was a great way to begin the book. With that description of her specialty, “living history”, it allows each reader to connect to the emphasis in this book.

I think it is important to have a book like Past into Present because it allows people unfamiliar with the culture to try and understand at a simplistic level. Hander and Gable’s book The New History in an Old Museum looks inside the sites of these living history establishments. The work of Hander and Gable is “focusing on museums as arenas for the significant convergence of political and cultural forces” (8). The purpose is not just about what happens “on stage”, but the efforts of everybody inside the birth of the entire establishment. He wants authenticity to be the center of it all. Is the site they’re examining real or fake or not real enough? They seem very irritated with these ideas. All though their book has a different purpose than the previous, it does not mean one is better than the other. This book is targeted toward a different audience; one that is familiar with living history sites and would want to know specific information about all the ins and outs of the non-profit organization: Colonial Williamsburg. If someone randomly picked up Handler and Gable’s book I think it would be a very difficult read. This does not necessarily mean that nothing can be taken away from it, but in comparison to Roth’s book, it is not as easy of a teaching tool. In contrast, for people whose hobby is “living history”, Handler and Gable’s book would be right up their ally and a great deal could be taken away and understood.

There were a few things in the first chapter that stood out to me in Handler and Gable’s book. I think the development of Colonial Williamsburg as one time being a small non-profit organization and now recognized as a mass tourist destination is something unique to examine. How did it get to this level? At what point did this “living history” site change from being all about authentic education based on the past, to adjusting certain aspects to serve the mass population of visitors who come on vacation? Lastly, what exactly caused them to change certain aspects of the characters to include more equity between races and genders? Can that no longer be described as authentic if some parts of the story are now made up to better suite our generation? The New History in an Old Museum provokes many thoughts inside of me. Where Past into Present differs in this case, is that it lays out information on a platter and does not call for my thinking cap to be running nearly as quickly.