After Contact by John Corona
Why was Guaman Poma’s letter to the King of Spain lost in archives for so long while the “Royal Commentaries," written by Inca Garcilaso de la Vega widely read in Spain?
What makes it so easy to dismiss the person you do not quite understand? In the conquest of the Incas of Peru by the Spanish there was a cultural collision and system of oppression. The reasons driving the oppression are powerful, but even more powerful are the methods used. In the context of a “Contact Zone,” (Pratt 530) the term used to describe the inequality of power in these meeting places of cultures. The massive letter to the King by Guaman Poma was a plea for help that was in a sense filed away only to be discovered over three centuries later. Due to the unequal positions of power within a contact zone there is no room for a minority language, which also leads to social decay and a loss of identity for those not in the majority. The factors contributing to this cultural vacuum are a direct result from the disparities in power, and social influence. These systems create a perverse sense of hierarchy for both those in power and those being subjugated.
The widespread corruption and social decline of those in the present day are the remnants of the systems used to control and suppress the voices of the people. In America we have the history of slavery it is not in the distant past that our own government institutions provided for segregation and the perpetuation of these inequities. These systems have not remained static, but have morphed and disguised themselves in the form of social class, biased educational systems, and social isolation in communities across the country. James Baldwin writes in, “A child cannot be taught by anyone whose demand, essentially, is that the child repudiate his experience, and all that gives him sustenance…” (para. 11) Although, I agree that the majority of the systems are biased and continue to suppress the identity of and history of persecution. We are not completely devoid of cultural representation through art and the collective voice of those who work very hard to overcome social injustice. It would be a mistake to assume that we cannot challenge the status quo and affect change.
The power of language to shape our beliefs, opinions about ourselves and others is often the tool used to assert the position of power in the, “contact zone” (Pratt 530) by those poised to benefit from the consequences. In the case of a conquered people we see a loss of identity through the denial of language. The burning of Quipus by the Spanish was a way of destroying a form of record keeping most commonly used by the Incas. In order to establish a new system of order, all other cultural systems of language must be removed and replaced with those in favor of the ruling class. Religious systems replaced and the destruction of cultural identity through the denial of language where most traditions are orally conveyed from generation to generation. These traditions often replaced with foreign ones that seek to calm any dissent and diminish the power to organize within these communities of “…asymmetrical relations of power…” (Pratt
530) as used to define a “contact zone,” by Mary Louise Pratt. The use of Black English is a form of objection to conformity and a way of retaining a cultural identity. It is a claim of individuality in a system designed to stifle the voice of protest and used as a means of survival. However, Black English is a double edged sword because although it establishes a unique identity, it can also be used as a form of social segregation. It adds to the idea of a lack of literacy within the Black community and it deepens the social divide already present.
The imbalance of power is apparent not only in terms of cultural denial, but is also evident in modern day systems of education that continue to increase the divide among racial and social boundaries. It is not limited to race, but also stretches to socioeconomic factors. There is no uniformity in standards of education across the board in the United States. Pratt writes, “Despite whatever conflicts or systematic social differences might be in play, it is assumed that all participants are engaged in the same game and that the game is the same for all players.”(Pratt 538) In the case of many schools across the country it is inherently biased to better serve those already in a better social standing. The funding for programs and quality of teaching certainly is not the same for children growing up in inner city schools and those in suburban middle class backgrounds. We cannot make the assumption that those in disadvantaged communities are being adequately prepared to become socially productive members of society when the challenges are much more primitive in urban schools.
Works of art in a contact zone can often serve one’s cause or diminish it even further. We often hear new slang terms introduced and used to the point of annoyance. The question however is how long do these expressions last and what sort of impression do they leave on both users and listeners? The adapted use of language in Hip Hop is a great example of the negative stereotypes of Black culture through musical artwork. A foreign listener of gangster rap or hip hop might assume negative stereotypes to be true and also lead many younger listeners of the music to assume the negative personas of the lyrics. The glamorization of the use of drugs, the lack of morality and objectification of black women in videos undermines the actual values of the majority of African Americans the music represents. Historically, most African American musical expressions stemmed from the early congregations in Churches across the southern United States, yet the music most popular among urban black communities today seems to have shifted and created a downward spiral. It makes famous a culture that does little to benefit those seeking social justice and equality and breeds ignorance and a false sense of achievement. It is my strong belief that much of the music in current Black culture has begun to negate the early social movements of the civil rights era and it pits the black community against itself. It should be questioned why such a decadent view is allowed to become so widespread in the media.
It is ironic that language can be both the thing that unites and divides us as well. We operate under the assumption that we all share a common language that it is cross culturally understood, but language is colored with each individual perspective. Whether it is because of race or social class language is largely shaped by culture and beliefs. Pratt poses the question, “Are teachers supposed to feel that their teaching has been most successful when they have eliminated such things and unified the social world, probably in their own image?” (Pratt 539) What this suggests is that the rules are somewhat arbitrary and subject to change by those making the rules. In a contact zone it is obvious that the ones holding power will shape and mold what is considered correct and what is not. In much the same way Black English is simply in the minority and because the systems and institutions in place will not allow for its acceptance as a whole. What we stand to lose are the cultural traditions and values that are speckled into the language being subverted. This ultimately devalues the persecuted and further complicates social problems both internally and externally of the group. The results of this disparity in language acceptance can lead to both positive and negative forms of artful representation. We can attempt to unify people with language, but it is ultimately biased in favor of one group over another.
Works Cited
Baldwin, James. "If Black English Isn't a Language, Then Tell Me, What is?" The New
York Times July 29, 1979: 1-3
Pratt, Mary Louise. “Arts of the Contact Zone” http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/c/a/caw43/behrendwriting/Pratt,%20Mary%20Louise.%20'Contact%20Zone'.pdf (1991): 529-539.
What makes it so easy to dismiss the person you do not quite understand? In the conquest of the Incas of Peru by the Spanish there was a cultural collision and system of oppression. The reasons driving the oppression are powerful, but even more powerful are the methods used. In the context of a “Contact Zone,” (Pratt 530) the term used to describe the inequality of power in these meeting places of cultures. The massive letter to the King by Guaman Poma was a plea for help that was in a sense filed away only to be discovered over three centuries later. Due to the unequal positions of power within a contact zone there is no room for a minority language, which also leads to social decay and a loss of identity for those not in the majority. The factors contributing to this cultural vacuum are a direct result from the disparities in power, and social influence. These systems create a perverse sense of hierarchy for both those in power and those being subjugated.
The widespread corruption and social decline of those in the present day are the remnants of the systems used to control and suppress the voices of the people. In America we have the history of slavery it is not in the distant past that our own government institutions provided for segregation and the perpetuation of these inequities. These systems have not remained static, but have morphed and disguised themselves in the form of social class, biased educational systems, and social isolation in communities across the country. James Baldwin writes in, “A child cannot be taught by anyone whose demand, essentially, is that the child repudiate his experience, and all that gives him sustenance…” (para. 11) Although, I agree that the majority of the systems are biased and continue to suppress the identity of and history of persecution. We are not completely devoid of cultural representation through art and the collective voice of those who work very hard to overcome social injustice. It would be a mistake to assume that we cannot challenge the status quo and affect change.
The power of language to shape our beliefs, opinions about ourselves and others is often the tool used to assert the position of power in the, “contact zone” (Pratt 530) by those poised to benefit from the consequences. In the case of a conquered people we see a loss of identity through the denial of language. The burning of Quipus by the Spanish was a way of destroying a form of record keeping most commonly used by the Incas. In order to establish a new system of order, all other cultural systems of language must be removed and replaced with those in favor of the ruling class. Religious systems replaced and the destruction of cultural identity through the denial of language where most traditions are orally conveyed from generation to generation. These traditions often replaced with foreign ones that seek to calm any dissent and diminish the power to organize within these communities of “…asymmetrical relations of power…” (Pratt
530) as used to define a “contact zone,” by Mary Louise Pratt. The use of Black English is a form of objection to conformity and a way of retaining a cultural identity. It is a claim of individuality in a system designed to stifle the voice of protest and used as a means of survival. However, Black English is a double edged sword because although it establishes a unique identity, it can also be used as a form of social segregation. It adds to the idea of a lack of literacy within the Black community and it deepens the social divide already present.
The imbalance of power is apparent not only in terms of cultural denial, but is also evident in modern day systems of education that continue to increase the divide among racial and social boundaries. It is not limited to race, but also stretches to socioeconomic factors. There is no uniformity in standards of education across the board in the United States. Pratt writes, “Despite whatever conflicts or systematic social differences might be in play, it is assumed that all participants are engaged in the same game and that the game is the same for all players.”(Pratt 538) In the case of many schools across the country it is inherently biased to better serve those already in a better social standing. The funding for programs and quality of teaching certainly is not the same for children growing up in inner city schools and those in suburban middle class backgrounds. We cannot make the assumption that those in disadvantaged communities are being adequately prepared to become socially productive members of society when the challenges are much more primitive in urban schools.
Works of art in a contact zone can often serve one’s cause or diminish it even further. We often hear new slang terms introduced and used to the point of annoyance. The question however is how long do these expressions last and what sort of impression do they leave on both users and listeners? The adapted use of language in Hip Hop is a great example of the negative stereotypes of Black culture through musical artwork. A foreign listener of gangster rap or hip hop might assume negative stereotypes to be true and also lead many younger listeners of the music to assume the negative personas of the lyrics. The glamorization of the use of drugs, the lack of morality and objectification of black women in videos undermines the actual values of the majority of African Americans the music represents. Historically, most African American musical expressions stemmed from the early congregations in Churches across the southern United States, yet the music most popular among urban black communities today seems to have shifted and created a downward spiral. It makes famous a culture that does little to benefit those seeking social justice and equality and breeds ignorance and a false sense of achievement. It is my strong belief that much of the music in current Black culture has begun to negate the early social movements of the civil rights era and it pits the black community against itself. It should be questioned why such a decadent view is allowed to become so widespread in the media.
It is ironic that language can be both the thing that unites and divides us as well. We operate under the assumption that we all share a common language that it is cross culturally understood, but language is colored with each individual perspective. Whether it is because of race or social class language is largely shaped by culture and beliefs. Pratt poses the question, “Are teachers supposed to feel that their teaching has been most successful when they have eliminated such things and unified the social world, probably in their own image?” (Pratt 539) What this suggests is that the rules are somewhat arbitrary and subject to change by those making the rules. In a contact zone it is obvious that the ones holding power will shape and mold what is considered correct and what is not. In much the same way Black English is simply in the minority and because the systems and institutions in place will not allow for its acceptance as a whole. What we stand to lose are the cultural traditions and values that are speckled into the language being subverted. This ultimately devalues the persecuted and further complicates social problems both internally and externally of the group. The results of this disparity in language acceptance can lead to both positive and negative forms of artful representation. We can attempt to unify people with language, but it is ultimately biased in favor of one group over another.
Works Cited
Baldwin, James. "If Black English Isn't a Language, Then Tell Me, What is?" The New
York Times July 29, 1979: 1-3
Pratt, Mary Louise. “Arts of the Contact Zone” http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/c/a/caw43/behrendwriting/Pratt,%20Mary%20Louise.%20'Contact%20Zone'.pdf (1991): 529-539.
Untitled (Analysis of Gang Leader for a Day) by Sammie Martinez
In analyzing the ethics between a researcher and subject, it is important to note that the definition of ethics differs from that of morality. Ethics are a set of rules that instruct conduct and differ by department. “The Belmont Report” summarizes three ethic principles researchers should follow when researching humans: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. These ethical principles are not literal though. Respect for persons refers to the autonomy of the person(s) being researched, beneficence refers to their ethical treatment (well-being), and justice refers to the research benefits and who receives them. In Gang Leader for a Day, Sudhir Venkatesh describes his research experience at the Robert Taylor Homes community. In contemplating whether Venkatesh demonstrated respect for persons throughout his research with the RTH community, it is crucial to acknowledge Venkatesh followed this ethical guideline figuratively not literally, which was used as approval of the community but not personal consent. More specifically, Venkatesh used the approval of J.T., the gang’s leader, yet used this consent as the consent of the entire community, failing to ask for the community’s consent.
In “The Belmont Report”, respect for persons is broken down into two ethical convictions. The first states “…that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled protection” (4). More specifically, people should be treated as capable of making their own decisions (consent), except for groups of people such as children or people with disabilities. These groups of people are not fully autonomous and require protection. In Gang Leader for a Day, Venkatesh develops a very close relationship with J.T., who is a gangster working with the Black Kings. When Venkatesh and J.T meet, Venkatesh explains how his project is based on poverty in African American communities, and how his collected data could aid in improving public policy. J.T tells Venkatesh that his questionnaire will not allow him to get to know people. Instead, J.T. proposes for Venkatesh to hang out with the community, “…get to know what they do, how they do it…You need to understand how young people live on the streets” (21). For majority of the book, Venkatesh seems to use this as justification for the community’s consent. In reality, though, Venkatesh never sits down with J.T. to show him his notes or observations of the community. Venkatesh’s observations are therefore bias and interpreted from his sole perspective- not the rest of the community. Unlike Venkatesh, in “Into the Dark Heart of Ethnography: The Lived Ethics and Inequality of Intimate Field Relationships,” Katherine Irwin explains how she received personal consent from her participants. She even adds, “I talked openly about the status of my writing, checked my thoughts and ideas with Lefty and our friends, and invited everyone to read my writing” (165). Irwin demonstrates respect for persons, because she constantly checks her work and shares her notes with her researched subjects. She also takes into account their opinions or perspectives, and corrects her own personal statements if they misinterpret or misrepresent her subjects. Unlike Irwin, Venkatesh lacks respect for persons toward his subjects. He is aware of J.T.’s approval, uses it as the approval of the community, but fails to even show his notes or inform J.T. of his observations, further failing to receive consent from J.T. himself.
On the other hand, a situation in which Venkatesh both demonstrates and lacks respect for persons is when he decides to buy food for Clarisse’s children. Venkatesh acknowledges that Clarisse’s children have diminished autonomy and thus cannot fully decide for themselves. He buys her children food and even purchases some groceries for them. Yet, Venkatesh does not show respect for persons toward Clarisse. He is assuming Clarisse has diminished autonomy, which makes her incapable of making decisions for her children, especially since she uses drugs. Furthermore, Venkatesh lacks respect for persons toward Ms. Bailey. She clearly told him not to feed Clarrisse’s children, because she claimed she never allowed children in the building to go hungry and had already fed Clarisse’s children. By feeding Clarisse’s children, Venkatesh is indicating that he knows better and thus did not demonstrate respect for persons toward Ms. Bailey. It seems that Venkatesh interprets respect for persons from a researcher’s intuition, without acknowledging the community’s perspective. This is evident in J.T. and C-Note’s confrontation, where C-Note was harshly beaten by the gang. Venkatesh observed the beating from a distance and did not intervene, even though C-Note was defenseless. At this point, Venkatesh begins questioning his research observations and defining what is ethical and not. This is another situation where Venkatesh did not obtain consent from the gang to publish such beatings or criminal activity. In “If no means no, does yes mean yes?” Julia O’Connell Davidson takes a position of consent that reflects that of Venkatesh. Unlike Venkatesh, who did not fully state that he had gained consent from his research subjects, Davidson explains that it was difficult to gain complete consent from her research subject, Desiree, due to their friendship. More specifically, Davidson explains how informed consent becomes jeopardized because “…nobody can fully predict at the outset all the possible outcomes of engaging in a social and emotional relationship with another human being” (63). Davidson’s friendship with Desiree, jeopardizes her research because she needs to draw a line between what Desiree consented to provide, versus the information she provides to Davidson through their friendship.
Thus, Davidson brings a different perspective to view, which defines informal consent as incomplete. Nobody knows how developed the relationship between a researcher and researched subject can become, nor what the outcomes of that relationship can be. Even though Venkatesh did not literally present this perspective, it seems to apply to him because he becomes overly involved with the RTH community. For example, instead of intervening in C-Note’s beating, he decided to remain quiet, making him not only a witness but contributor. Instead of being a researcher, he begins to be seen as a part of the community, to the extent where he is invited to parties, gang member meetings, and takes part in some gang activities. This further leads him to confuse respect for persons, because it seems like he feels that since he already knows the community and the community accepts him, he has the permission to write about it. Also, by forming a relationship with J.T., Venkatesh’s role as a researcher becomes blurred. This questions what can or cannot be published, that will maintain his fidelity to J.T., while maintaining his own fidelity as a researcher and to his research.
In “For Whom?” by Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, Susan Weseen, and Loonmun Wong, there is a section titled Inform(ing) and Consent: Who’s Informed and Who’s Consenting? where interviews and consent forms are mentioned. The section explains how the consent forms, instead of protecting the interviewees by informing them about the harms and their right to withdraw, also “effectively releases the institution or funding agency from any liability and gives control of the research process to the researcher” (113). More specifically, interviewees are informed of the interview and the troubles that might emerge from participating in the research, yet if they choose to participate, agencies or researchers are irresponsible if something is published not to the interviewee’s liking or opinion. Interviewees are thus expected to open up to the researcher emotionally and personally, yet whatever they state can be used against them in different ways. This can obviously make an interview very uncomfortable, because the interviewee needs to be careful with what he/she decides to share. Another point to consider in “For Whom?” is where Judith Stacey argues how “…ethnography depends upon human relationships, engagement, and attachment, with the research process potentially placing research subjects at grave risk of manipulation and betrayal” (114). This is crucial in further understanding the reasoning for Venkatesh’s lack of respect for persons. Though Venkatesh did not state this, it can be argued that if Venkatesh had not become so close to the subjects emotionally and amiably, he would have never learned from the people of the RTH community. Instead, he would have only included what he observed, yet not what he learned from each individual he met. On one occasion, for example, Venkatesh accidentally tells J.T. that he will meet him at his place, because he first needs to write some of his observations down. Venkatesh explains, “…I feared he would think about everything we’d just witnessed and discussed, including all the illegal activities, and shut me down” (51). Yet, Venkatesh adds how J.T. did not argue this, which to him, was an indication that J.T. approved him writing down his observations. This is also clear in the book, because Venkatesh forms relationships with different people from the RTH community, which become his subjects, for they provide details of their lives in the projects and relationships with the Black Kings, who controlled yet, to an extent, also protected them. What Venkatesh failed to inform his subjects, though, was of the consequences that such details or evidence could bring to their lives once published.
Toward the book’s ending, majority of the RTH buildings are demolished and J.T. is not making much money. On the other hand, Venkatesh’s success, majorly due to the the RTH community, grows and he even becomes a professor at Columbia University. Venkatesh does admit that J.T. shaped and formed a big part of his life and research, yet he acknowledges that he does not feel their relationship could be labeled as a friendship. Though this may be true to him, this does not seem to apply to J.T., who seems to be a bit upset at Venkatesh’s departure, even though he does not clearly show it. Throughout the book, Venkatesh acts and depicts himself as a helper of the community, as a friend, and as a part of the RTH community. Yet in the end, he admits that his research at the RTH community benefitted himself, but never promised to benefit the community or J.T.. Surprisingly, toward the end of their relationship, J.T. is still convinced that Venkatesh’s research is helpful toward finishing his biography. This further demonstrates Venkatesh’s lack of respect for persons, by refusing to inform J.T. that his notes and observations are actually being used for his own research and that there will not be any biography. Though a researcher is supposed to produce trust and security toward his subjects, he/she must also receive consent. Some may argue that Venkatesh’s lack of respect for persons were key in providing him with first-hand experience with the RTH community, gangs, and violence. Yet the reality is that this community was left with nothing, except a different image of Venkatesh’s research and intentions. During my future research, I not only plan to receive consent from my subject, but also make him feel comfortable and protected. If there is information he wishes for me to not disclose, as a researcher, I must accept this to make my research accurate and true to my subject’s ideas or opinions. Overall, though Venkatesh lacked respect for persons toward the RTH community, he did receive consent from J.T.. What he failed to do, though, was inform J.T. of the way in which he would use such consent to his own benefit, instead of to the benefit of him.
In “The Belmont Report”, respect for persons is broken down into two ethical convictions. The first states “…that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled protection” (4). More specifically, people should be treated as capable of making their own decisions (consent), except for groups of people such as children or people with disabilities. These groups of people are not fully autonomous and require protection. In Gang Leader for a Day, Venkatesh develops a very close relationship with J.T., who is a gangster working with the Black Kings. When Venkatesh and J.T meet, Venkatesh explains how his project is based on poverty in African American communities, and how his collected data could aid in improving public policy. J.T tells Venkatesh that his questionnaire will not allow him to get to know people. Instead, J.T. proposes for Venkatesh to hang out with the community, “…get to know what they do, how they do it…You need to understand how young people live on the streets” (21). For majority of the book, Venkatesh seems to use this as justification for the community’s consent. In reality, though, Venkatesh never sits down with J.T. to show him his notes or observations of the community. Venkatesh’s observations are therefore bias and interpreted from his sole perspective- not the rest of the community. Unlike Venkatesh, in “Into the Dark Heart of Ethnography: The Lived Ethics and Inequality of Intimate Field Relationships,” Katherine Irwin explains how she received personal consent from her participants. She even adds, “I talked openly about the status of my writing, checked my thoughts and ideas with Lefty and our friends, and invited everyone to read my writing” (165). Irwin demonstrates respect for persons, because she constantly checks her work and shares her notes with her researched subjects. She also takes into account their opinions or perspectives, and corrects her own personal statements if they misinterpret or misrepresent her subjects. Unlike Irwin, Venkatesh lacks respect for persons toward his subjects. He is aware of J.T.’s approval, uses it as the approval of the community, but fails to even show his notes or inform J.T. of his observations, further failing to receive consent from J.T. himself.
On the other hand, a situation in which Venkatesh both demonstrates and lacks respect for persons is when he decides to buy food for Clarisse’s children. Venkatesh acknowledges that Clarisse’s children have diminished autonomy and thus cannot fully decide for themselves. He buys her children food and even purchases some groceries for them. Yet, Venkatesh does not show respect for persons toward Clarisse. He is assuming Clarisse has diminished autonomy, which makes her incapable of making decisions for her children, especially since she uses drugs. Furthermore, Venkatesh lacks respect for persons toward Ms. Bailey. She clearly told him not to feed Clarrisse’s children, because she claimed she never allowed children in the building to go hungry and had already fed Clarisse’s children. By feeding Clarisse’s children, Venkatesh is indicating that he knows better and thus did not demonstrate respect for persons toward Ms. Bailey. It seems that Venkatesh interprets respect for persons from a researcher’s intuition, without acknowledging the community’s perspective. This is evident in J.T. and C-Note’s confrontation, where C-Note was harshly beaten by the gang. Venkatesh observed the beating from a distance and did not intervene, even though C-Note was defenseless. At this point, Venkatesh begins questioning his research observations and defining what is ethical and not. This is another situation where Venkatesh did not obtain consent from the gang to publish such beatings or criminal activity. In “If no means no, does yes mean yes?” Julia O’Connell Davidson takes a position of consent that reflects that of Venkatesh. Unlike Venkatesh, who did not fully state that he had gained consent from his research subjects, Davidson explains that it was difficult to gain complete consent from her research subject, Desiree, due to their friendship. More specifically, Davidson explains how informed consent becomes jeopardized because “…nobody can fully predict at the outset all the possible outcomes of engaging in a social and emotional relationship with another human being” (63). Davidson’s friendship with Desiree, jeopardizes her research because she needs to draw a line between what Desiree consented to provide, versus the information she provides to Davidson through their friendship.
Thus, Davidson brings a different perspective to view, which defines informal consent as incomplete. Nobody knows how developed the relationship between a researcher and researched subject can become, nor what the outcomes of that relationship can be. Even though Venkatesh did not literally present this perspective, it seems to apply to him because he becomes overly involved with the RTH community. For example, instead of intervening in C-Note’s beating, he decided to remain quiet, making him not only a witness but contributor. Instead of being a researcher, he begins to be seen as a part of the community, to the extent where he is invited to parties, gang member meetings, and takes part in some gang activities. This further leads him to confuse respect for persons, because it seems like he feels that since he already knows the community and the community accepts him, he has the permission to write about it. Also, by forming a relationship with J.T., Venkatesh’s role as a researcher becomes blurred. This questions what can or cannot be published, that will maintain his fidelity to J.T., while maintaining his own fidelity as a researcher and to his research.
In “For Whom?” by Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, Susan Weseen, and Loonmun Wong, there is a section titled Inform(ing) and Consent: Who’s Informed and Who’s Consenting? where interviews and consent forms are mentioned. The section explains how the consent forms, instead of protecting the interviewees by informing them about the harms and their right to withdraw, also “effectively releases the institution or funding agency from any liability and gives control of the research process to the researcher” (113). More specifically, interviewees are informed of the interview and the troubles that might emerge from participating in the research, yet if they choose to participate, agencies or researchers are irresponsible if something is published not to the interviewee’s liking or opinion. Interviewees are thus expected to open up to the researcher emotionally and personally, yet whatever they state can be used against them in different ways. This can obviously make an interview very uncomfortable, because the interviewee needs to be careful with what he/she decides to share. Another point to consider in “For Whom?” is where Judith Stacey argues how “…ethnography depends upon human relationships, engagement, and attachment, with the research process potentially placing research subjects at grave risk of manipulation and betrayal” (114). This is crucial in further understanding the reasoning for Venkatesh’s lack of respect for persons. Though Venkatesh did not state this, it can be argued that if Venkatesh had not become so close to the subjects emotionally and amiably, he would have never learned from the people of the RTH community. Instead, he would have only included what he observed, yet not what he learned from each individual he met. On one occasion, for example, Venkatesh accidentally tells J.T. that he will meet him at his place, because he first needs to write some of his observations down. Venkatesh explains, “…I feared he would think about everything we’d just witnessed and discussed, including all the illegal activities, and shut me down” (51). Yet, Venkatesh adds how J.T. did not argue this, which to him, was an indication that J.T. approved him writing down his observations. This is also clear in the book, because Venkatesh forms relationships with different people from the RTH community, which become his subjects, for they provide details of their lives in the projects and relationships with the Black Kings, who controlled yet, to an extent, also protected them. What Venkatesh failed to inform his subjects, though, was of the consequences that such details or evidence could bring to their lives once published.
Toward the book’s ending, majority of the RTH buildings are demolished and J.T. is not making much money. On the other hand, Venkatesh’s success, majorly due to the the RTH community, grows and he even becomes a professor at Columbia University. Venkatesh does admit that J.T. shaped and formed a big part of his life and research, yet he acknowledges that he does not feel their relationship could be labeled as a friendship. Though this may be true to him, this does not seem to apply to J.T., who seems to be a bit upset at Venkatesh’s departure, even though he does not clearly show it. Throughout the book, Venkatesh acts and depicts himself as a helper of the community, as a friend, and as a part of the RTH community. Yet in the end, he admits that his research at the RTH community benefitted himself, but never promised to benefit the community or J.T.. Surprisingly, toward the end of their relationship, J.T. is still convinced that Venkatesh’s research is helpful toward finishing his biography. This further demonstrates Venkatesh’s lack of respect for persons, by refusing to inform J.T. that his notes and observations are actually being used for his own research and that there will not be any biography. Though a researcher is supposed to produce trust and security toward his subjects, he/she must also receive consent. Some may argue that Venkatesh’s lack of respect for persons were key in providing him with first-hand experience with the RTH community, gangs, and violence. Yet the reality is that this community was left with nothing, except a different image of Venkatesh’s research and intentions. During my future research, I not only plan to receive consent from my subject, but also make him feel comfortable and protected. If there is information he wishes for me to not disclose, as a researcher, I must accept this to make my research accurate and true to my subject’s ideas or opinions. Overall, though Venkatesh lacked respect for persons toward the RTH community, he did receive consent from J.T.. What he failed to do, though, was inform J.T. of the way in which he would use such consent to his own benefit, instead of to the benefit of him.
I Would Like, If I May, To Take You On a Strange Journey by LeeAnn Penz
I Would Like, If I May, To Take You On A Strange Journey Science Fiction/Double Feature
The cult classic The Rocky Horror Picture Show has all the qualities to make a timeless film. It lacks a clear plot, has easily remembered dance sequences, and tells the viewer that it’s okay to be who you are. The Rocky Horror Picture Show toes the line between a waste of time and the greatest thing ever, which seems to be a requirement for any cult classic. The film is so bizarrely ridiculous that it’s hard to forget and even harder to watch only once. The Rocky Horror Picture Show’s generous amount of campiness, relatability, strangeness, and intentional humor enraptures the audience in the liberated world of the Transsexuals from the drastically different planet of Transylvania.
The film creates a comparison between the Transylvanians and Americans, which in return exposes the faults of our society. In theory, American society encourages diversity and true individuals, but in reality, it is displeased when a person behaves beyond the accepted idea of conventional. A society that is so restrictive in its expectations must ensure that those morals permeate every level of life in order to have a widespread brainwashing effect on its people. Art critic, John Berger states, “seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak” (Berger 1). The brainwashing effect starts even at infancy, when children are shamed for not behaving “correctly” in the terms of society’s norms. This effect teaches our population at an early age that there is something wrong with the individual who cannot fulfill the American ideal. Judgements are passed on the infant and their parents if the child behaves in a way seen as not-normal, implying that individualism in our society should be discouraged.
As a result, a situation of normal versus not-normal is created within American culture, which suggests that one is correct while the other is wrong. Jane Tompkins, author of “‘Indians’: Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History,” questions the habit of describing the “not- normal” group “in terms of ‘lack’” (Tompkins 4). By defining the “not-normal” as lacking the traits of the “normal” it further strengthens the idea that the “normal,” meaning the heteronormative, role-abiding, norm-following population, are the standard and the “correct” way to behave. This idea further creates a divide in the population and represses the progress of both the individual and society as whole.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show exists to smash the very concept of society dictating what behavior is permitted for its people. The film follows the story of a tyrannic transvestite scientist convincing an all-American hero and his virginal fiancée to lose their morals and give in to decadence. Every aspect of the film is the direct opposite of what is idealized in mainstream society. The film ends in a literal disaster and does not show the aftermath or suggest any solutions. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a complete, unapologetic rejection of all things conventional.
A Hero
Brad Majors appears to be the typical “every-day male” lead in a film: white, educated, physically fit, and clean-cut. When coupled with his fiancée, Janet, together they represent the stereotypical middle-class American couple. At the start of the movie, Brad is a duplication of the ideal American male. By the end he is wearing high heels, a corset, donning make-up, and most importantly of all, declaring that he feels sexy while doing it. Despite his heroic characterization, he ultimately is the one preyed upon by the misfit society created within Frank- N-Furter’s castle. Brad’s lack of fulfillment with the stereotype he personifies shows that though they are based loosely on truth, stereotypes can never be a realistic representation of a cultural group.
It only takes five songs before he is stripped of his costume, experiencing his first freedom from American culture. When he is only in his tighty-whiteys, Brad starts to lose the dominance he previously had for inhabiting the male ideal. Unexpectedly, the falsehood of his masculinity is exposed easily and he becomes vulnerable in this new society, setting a comparable difference from his previous position of power. His transition from classic masculine hunk to cross-dresser exposes the fragility of a person whose behavior is based around the idea of normal. Having an overwhelming concern with following norms results in an ever-changing personality, as norms are subjective to the environment. Orgies, incest, and murder are seen as typical behavior at the Frankenstein Place, while outside of the castle, the exact opposite is accepted. Brad’s story reveals that traditional, norm-following behavior does not always determine power, and that power is dependent on the environment. Ultimately, Brad fails at forcing himself to be a stereotype and “give[s] in to absolute pleasure,” which includes having sex with a man, cross-dressing, and dancing a kick line like a pro. When he has his first conversation with Frank, Brad’s voice is full of bravado, his chest is puffed, and his handshake is aggressive. Unnecessarily, Brad is quick to take offense to Frank’s comments and his swinging fists and threats are used to reaffirm his previous role in society as the traditional masculine leader and to distance himself from the Transylvanians. But when alone with Frank-N-Furter and promised that it’ll be kept secret, Brad agrees to have sex with him without much hesitation, and later at the Floor Show, Brad reveals feeling enthused to be given acceptance to behave in this unconventional way. The only time we see Brad in complete contentment is after he is liberated by a corset and heels, and is having an orgy with two men and two women. In the opening scene, when Brad proposes to Janet, the viewer watches his happiness quickly fade and a look of regret take over his face after she agrees. In that moment it is confusing why his happiness is so short-lived but as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that Brad’s unhappiness stems from his lack of fulfillment in life, which is a result of his role in society. For the male characters fulfillment in life is dependent on whether or not they are wearing high-heels, and only when cross-dressing do they find strength and particularly in Brad’s case, happiness.
A Heroine
Janet Weiss, Brad’s fiancée, is first seen at a wedding catching the bride’s bouquet. She exemplifies a virginal young woman whose dream of getting engaged finally comes true at the start of the film. Janet is labeled as Brad’s counterpart, representing the idea of the “every-day female” lead. It becomes clear almost instantly that her priorities are getting married and living the “All-American” life, as a housewife with a husband and kids. In any other setting, her character would easily fade into the background with her pastel-colored clothes and personality, and her story would be predictable, but her interactions with the Transylvanians forces both the viewer and Janet to examine society and the role she personifies.
Janet embodies the idea that a woman’s worth to society is dependent on how successful they are at living the virgin lifestyle. Her behavior and expectations at the start of the film reflect her position in dominant society, showing that, similar to Brad, she was given power from society for embracing the feminine ideal. The comparison between her morals and the Transylvanians’ morals becomes evident during their first interaction with each other, when she is so scandalized by their openly sexual behavior that she daintily and dramatically faints into Brad’s strong arms, twice. Within the first few scenes at the Frankenstein Place, it becomes obvious that Janet is not as true to the lifestyle that she embraces and that, in actuality, she is deeply intrigued by and lustful for the unconventional behavior around her. Within the walls of the castle, sexuality is integrated into every day life and viewed as a normal, every-day activity. This perspective is unlike the world Brad and Janet experience, where the incorporation of sexuality with casual activities often leads to objectification and shame. At the Frankenstein Place, Janet is encouraged to discover her own sexual identity and finds support and approval from society when she does. The Transylvanians’ motive for urging Janet to become sexually active is not to make her a sexual object to others, but so she can experience their idea of a fulfilled life. Janet’s song, “Touch-a Touch-a Touch Me,” is about her sexual awakening, where she finds Rocky in his tank and gives in to her urges. In this scene, Janet realizes that there is more to her character than virtue and timidness, and begins to embrace her newly found confidence and empowerment. In the castle, Janet is still seen as capable of having traits that society associates with the virgin lifestyle such as innocence, vulnerability, and defenselessness, even after she becomes sexually active. The movie offers a complex view on a woman’s sexuality compared to the very contradictory restrictions that the dominant society places upon its women. At the Floor Show, Janet is the only one to express feeling freed after meeting Frank-N-Furter. She moans on stage that she has found “release” and that the “bad times have deceased.” To her, sexual freedom was the key to her escape from a restricted and limited lifestyle that was promoted by society. Janet has the most positive of transformations, evolving from a damsel in distress to a courageous and strong-willed woman. She remains the only character to be happy with her transformation and think of Frank positively.
A Groupie
Columbia is presented as the craziest of all of Frank-N-Furter’s people and is the only one introduced as having complete unwavering adoration for Frank. She is also the only earthling in his entourage and worships Frank and his ex-delivery boy/lover, Eddie. She follows both around like a servant and is always waiting eagerly for their acknowledgement. She seems to have lost characterization beyond being a worshipper and a submissive lover. Columbia is purposely difficult to examine, as she has little identity. She is the voice of Frank-N-Furter’s Transylvanian chorus and her character represents the following nature of society.
Throughout the film, Columbia constantly shows dramatic expressions of emotion. She shrieks and cries repeatedly, openly expressing her emotions while the other characters keep them private or withheld. Despite being more vocal about her emotions, it takes Columbia the longest to take action toward achieving the reality that she wants. During the dinner scene, after the guests (minus Rocky) figure out that the meat being served is actually Eddie, who Frank had killed in the previous scene out of jealousy, Columbia is the only one to leave. Her polite excusal from the table is the beginnings of her removal from Frank’s control and a passively aggressive expression of anger.
Columbia’s heartbreak over Eddie’s death and the continuous revelations of Frank’s faults accumulates until her final thread of naivety vanishes, when she walks in to find Frank converting Janet, Brad, and Dr. Scott into statues as a way to force them into cooperation. She then shouts her displeasure at Frank, even going as far as demanding that he choose between Rocky and herself, and Frank responds by turning Columbia into a statue as well. The characters are placed on stage for the Floor Show and they perform Frank’s choreographed dance while singing, “Rose Tint My World,” a song where the characters are finally truthful about their thoughts. Columbia expresses her conflicting feelings about Frank-N-Furter and sings that only her undying devotion to Frank can keep her “safe from [her] trouble and pain.” The characters then share a rare moment of contentment with each other when they jump into the pool. Columbia easily returns to adoring Frank and the rest of the characters and her previous revelations are put aside. Unfortunately, Columbia has yet to form a concrete idea on Frank when the climax comes and by then, Riff-Raff has the transit beam ready. She becomes emotionally struck during Frank’s soliloquy, after he reveals what she believes is in his heart, and further questions her loss of faith in Frank. She cries out as Riff-Raff moves to kill Frank and is killed instead. Columbia went from worshipping Frank-N-Furter to finding herself through her disillusionment, but ultimately dies before discovering her own identity separate from the god- like figure she worshipped.
A Scientist
Dr. Frank-N-Furter is the leader of the Transylvanians and is in the process of creating a muscle man when Brad and Janet enter his castle. He represents authority and the decision maker for what is acceptable in his makeshift society. Frank is an exaggerated example of a nontraditional creature. His character is literally from another planet, and is liberated from the American culture’s rigid constraints. In any other environment, he would be the underdog, struggling for his voice to be heard, but in the movie, being a transvestite and having a position of power are not contradictory. Unlike Brad and Janet who find power and comfort in embracing expected societal roles, Frank’s strength comes from his lack of acknowledgement to society’s binaries as he is both a scientist and an artist, a villain and a weakling, a man and a woman, and a leader and a loner.
Frank’s character examines the thrill of giving in to a person’s dreams and fantasies. Not only does he blatantly ignore society’s expectations but he gets pleasure from destroying all behavior that abides norms. He encourages individualism, promoting the well-being of a person’s own-self over society as a whole. Frank’s motivation for his actions is reflected amongst his people in the way that they behave under his leadership, as the Transylvanians have absolutely no limitations or care for the dominant society. Frank offers a world where taboos do not exist, and pleasure is never preceded by the word ‘guilty.’
Frank is an outwardly expressive sexual deviant and it is safe to assume he has had sex with every character that gets screen time. He is unabashed, wild, and uninhibited with his sexuality, flaunting it in every interaction, and reaffirming his leadership from others’ lack of sexual freedom. Frank is also a social deviant and embodies the traditional traits of both a man and a woman. He wears dresses, high heels, make-up, plays into the idea of a woman’s fragility through his mannerisms, and intentionally has an extreme flair for the dramatic. He is also aggressive, dangerous to others when they disobey him, and his presence has an unyielding dominance over everyone else.
At the Floor Show, Frank reveals his past experiences with traditional morals and sings about his life before he allowed himself the pleasure of cross-dressing. He then finally achieves exactly what he wants, and with a look of manic glee, he and his once-unhappy guests jump into the pool and have an orgy of love and submission to pleasure. When Riff-Raff and his sister/ lover, Magenta announce Frank’s impending death, he is assisted by a projector, a wind machine, and running make-up, to create a sentimental song about his longing for his home planet. Magenta interrupts Frank’s reverie, and after a cat and mouse-like chase, Riff-Raff shoots him. The others shout in Frank’s defense after his death and Rocky avenges his creator by trying to escape with his body. Rocky fails and is killed as well, while Frank’s body falls into the pool to float along with he painting of the gods.
Despite his cannibalism, murders, and general tyrannic behavior, Frank-N-Furter is easy to root for. He exemplifies the most extreme of misfits finding a place in society and being idolized for his oddities. Because of how bizarre and distrustful each character is, it is easy for the viewer to overlook Frank’s faults, which creates a dialogue on the brainwashing effect that idols have on their fans. Frank is implied to be the film’s villain until his power his taken away at the end, which is followed by the revelation that he went through such extremes in order to keep his people close and to hold on to their support. The movie exaggerates a stereotype of a social outcast for the sake of the cinematic experience, while still leaving Frank relatable and pitiable just enough, that the viewer experiences complex and at times, contradictory feelings toward him.
A Handyman
Riff-Raff, Frank-N-Furter’s trusted servant, brings forth the death of Frank, Rocky, Columbia, and ultimately, returns the Frankenstein Place back to the Transylvanians’ home planet. Throughout the film he remains stoic, reserved, and hides in the background of most shots, continuing to be questionable until the very end when a weapon in his hands. Riff-Raff grows steadily more displeased with Frank’s leadership as the movie progresses, and preludes his killing spree with the line of, “your mission [of taking over Earth] is a failure, your lifestyle’s too extreme.” Riff-Raff also agrees with Dr. Scott when he says, “society must be protected.”
It can be assumed that Riff-Raff then represents the crushing of creativity and individuality. He could be symbolic of the dominant society’s overwhelming strength and ability to reassume power over the non-traditional population. It can be argued that he shows that the unconventional cannot find a place in dominant society, and that the two are polar opposites with no means of coexisting peacefully. All of this could be an explanation as to why Riff-Raff makes the decision that Frank’s plans for dominance are too excessive and that he needs to be killed in order to be stopped permanently.
However, Riff-Raff does not do these actions for the greater good of society like Dr. Scott suggests. He does so because he and his sister/lover, Magenta, want, more than anything, to return to their home planet. With that in mind, the situation evolves to be because of Riff-Raff’s ethnocentrism. Throughout the film, he does not show any interest for Earth or its people. He does not try to change the behavior of Brad and Janet, in fact, he barely interacts with them beyond a smirk in their direction. After killing Frank, he could have easily taken over his role and tried for domination over Earth, but instead, he lets Brad, Janet, and Dr. Scott escape the castle before beaming it back to his planet. It is obvious that Riff-Raff would have easily killed the human characters had they put up a fight against him, but again, he shows a lack of care about their existences, and his focus is solely on returning his sister and himself to Transsexual.
Riff-Raff’s character is the least opposed to the world of unconventionality that the Transylvanians embrace. His decision to kill three main characters and ultimately bring forth the end of the film was not a protest against their society’s lack of morals as Riff-Raff has the most
freakish attributes out of all the characters (the most disapproved being his incestuous relationship with his sister). He, more than any other character, would be the rejected by the dominant society outside of the castle. He also seems to take pride in that fact, as he is the only character that does not try to present the taboos he acts on as desirable. Therefore, Riff-Raff’s actions were driven by his personal desire to return home and were unrelated to the tensions between traditional and non-traditional societies.
** * As much as The Rocky Horror Picture Show is in dialogue with a conservative and limited society, it is, to an extent, just a film. Along with laughing at society, it laughs at the repetitive structure of texts. The film relies heavily on exaggerating horror film tropes, for example, incorporating a damsel in distress, her brave hero, a mad scientist, and his hunchbacked servant. Frank-N-Furter’s character is clearly a vamped up, sexualized, gay parody of Frankenstein. Events such as Riff-Raff’s sudden change in character and Frank’s killing of Eddie, serve mainly to create a parody of horror and sci-fi film clichés rather than to speak of societal notions.
Don’t Dream It, Be It
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a mockery of all things traditional. It presents a world that encourages oddities and grants strength to those who disobey norms. It is a landscape for misfits that do not fit into society’s molds, to find reassurance that somewhere there is a society out there that fits them. Like any great text, it provides a momentary escape from an oppressive reality into a fantastical world of acceptance. The film is clear with its message that norms and societal approval are not things to live your life by and it repeatedly shows how easily broken and rewritten they can be. The Rocky Horror Picture Show dismisses the concept of normal and offers a world that encourages individuality above all else.
With its courageous and bold messages on society and conventionality, The Rocky Horror Picture Show deserves the recognition it has received since its release in 1975. The film is a triumphal representation of weirdness and encourages the viewer to make their fantasies a reality. The Rocky Horror Picture Show serves an important role in providing outcasts with a voice, and contrasts with society’s habit of denying the unconventional with respect and acknowledgement. From start to end and embedded within every song and dance sequence, the film is a strange and chaotic celebration of the individual. It may be a mess of clichés, over-the- top acting, and catchy tunes, but ultimately, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is sincere in its moral of, “don’t dream it, be it.”
Work Cited
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 1977. Print.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Dir. Jim Sharman. Perf. Tim Curry, Susan Sarandon, Barry
Bostwick, Richard O'Brien. Twentieth Century Fox, 1975. Film.
Tompkins, Jane. “‘Indians’: Textualism, Morality, and the Problem of History.” Critical Inquiry ! ! 13.1 (1986). Print.