Jewish Anti-semitic ideology

Q5.

Using the theories of Roland Barthes discuss one image from the mass media that is, in your opinion a representation of a certain cultural ideology or ‘Myth’.

Reflecting on the ideas of Roland Barthes this essay will argue that anti-semitic ideology or ‘Myth’ as Barthes refers to it, is present in the dialogue and actions of Jewish actors and comedians.

The online Compact Oxford English Dictionary would define the conventional sense of myth as:

Noun 1: a traditional story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, typically involving the supernatural.

2: a widely held but false belief.

3: a fictitious person or thing. (2009, Oxford University Press)

However according to Barthes (2000, pp.109-110); ‘Myth is a type of speech’; therefore everything can be a myth provided it is conveyed by language because there is no law, natural or not that forbids the discussion of things. Myth is not confined to oral speech; it can be modes of written discourse, photography, film, sport, T.V shows and publicity. Barthes states that there are no eternal myths as it is human speech that depicts the life and death of mythical language therefore as myth is a type of speech chosen from history it can’t evolve from the nature of things.

Barthes purpose for discussing myth is mainly political. And in the ‘Preface’ to the 1957 edition of Mythologies he states ‘I resented seeing Nature and History confused at every turn, and I wanted to track down, in the decorative display of what-goes-without-saying, the ideological abuse which, in my view, is hidden there’. (2000, p.11). He believed that myths are examples of ‘depoliticised speech’, ways of persuading us that something that is highly ideological, highly partisan, and highly historical, is really only a matter of universal common sense.

First posited by Saussure (1974) Barthes wanted to address semiology in a more methodical fashion on popular culture. In his essay ‘Myth Today’ he looks at Saussure’s

Schema of signifier/signified = sign and adds to it a second level of signification. (2006, p.93) In Elements of Semiology, Barthes, (1967) substitutes signifier/signified for the more familiar terms ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’. ‘Denotation’ tends to be described as the definitional, literal, obvious or commonsense meaning of a sign. The term 'connotation' is used to refer to the socio-cultural and 'personal' associations (ideological, emotional etc.) of the sign. As Fiske puts it 'denotation is what is photographed, connotation is how it is photographed' (Fiske, 1982, p.91).

Barthes came to the conclusion that 'denotation is not the first meaning, but pretends to be so; under this illusion, it is ultimately no more than the last of the connotations (the one which seems both to establish and close the reading), the superior myth by which the text pretends to return to the nature of language, to language as nature’. (Barthes, 1974, p.9). In short, connotation produces the illusion of denotation, and of the signifier and the signified as being identical. Therefore denotation is just another connotation. Denotation then can be seen as no more of a 'natural' meaning than is connotation but rather as a process of naturalisation.

Barthes often discussed aspects of ideologies as mythical and this is one of the fundamental assumptions of Marxism. A Marxist take on ideology would be that it is used to indicate how some texts and practices present distorted images of reality. (Storey, 2006, p.2). In Karl Marxs’ The German Ideology he defines ideology itself as the representation of the ‘production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness,’ all that ‘men say, imagine, conceive,’ and include such things as ‘politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc.’ (2001, p.47). Ideology then functions as the ‘superstructure’ of a civilisation: the conventions and culture that make up the dominant ideas of a society. This ruling class will then benefit from this particular economic organization of society.

An alternative Marxist take on ideology is found in the ideas of Louis Althusser. He begins by rejecting the mechanistic interpretation of the base/superstructure formulation and instead insists on the concept of social formation and ideology as a material practice. In Althussers’ essay Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Toward an Investigation, his theory of ideology draws on Freud's and Lacan's concepts of the unconscious and mirror-phase respectively, and describes the structures and systems that enable the concept of the self. These structures, for Althusser, are both agents of repression and inevitable meaning it is impossible to escape ideology and to not be subjected to it. (1971, pp. 121-17) What he means by this is that ideology is encountered in the practices of everyday life and not just in certain ideas of everyday life, he believes that by setting our own rituals and customs binds us to this social formation a formation that is marked by status, wealth and power. Althussers’ term used to describe recognising ourselves in this ideology is interpellation: ‘which is the process by which agents (individuals) acquire their self-awareness as subjects, and the skills and attributes necessary for their social placement’. (Marshall, G. 1998)

An example of Anti-Marxism would be National Socialism: commonly known as Nazism, it is a German political movement initiated in 1920 with the organisation of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or NSDAP). The movement culminated in the establishment of the Third Reich, the totalitarian German state led by the dictator Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945. (Microsoft, 2008).

The National Socialist ideology was an outgrowth of earlier political theories that also gave birth to Fascism: a political, oppressive and dictatorial controlling movement that first became popular in Italy. Nazism brought together the ideas of racial Antisemitism (that Jews were inferior by virtue of their race, or genetic makeup), Social Darwinism (that certain individuals or ethnic groups are dominant because of their inherent genetic superiority e.g the ‘Aryan Race’, and Lebensraum (the belief that Germans needed more ‘living space’, i.e. more territory). (Rozett & Spector, 2002)

 Nazism also embraced the attitude of total anti-Bolshevism. The Nazi Party’s chief ideologist, Alfred Rosenburg matched the Jews with the Soviet Bolshevists, creating ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’. Now all of a sudden, American-Jewish lobbyists and the Bolshevist enemy in the Soviet Union were two sides of the same coin. This became extremely useful as a propaganda tool during the war, in particular following the United States’ entry.

According to The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies ‘The political goal of the ideology was to establish a totalitarian state, that is to say a modern, bureaucratic state, where the government is completely dominant in relation to the individual. It is thus a purpose of the regime to monopolise all human activities, both private and public’. (Vogelsang, P. & Larsen, B. 2002)

Antisemitism however, is not a history lesson it exists in a current global scale. The 21^st Century is responsible for a new wave of antisemitism, titled ‘New Antisemitism’ and according to minister Lois Olena, there are six groups responsible: Islamic reactionaries; ‘the Left’ (a catch-all phrase for intellectuals/academics - including university students and faculty, progressives, elites, the media, journalists, and scientists who hold anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli views); ‘the extreme Right’ (neo-Nazi, skinhead, Holocaust-denying, Ku Klux Klan, White supremacist types); certain African-Americans (e.g., Nation of Islam); the Christian world (the extreme Christian Right and denominations divesting in Israeli economics and/or academics); and ‘self-hating’ Jews (such as Adam Shapiro and Woody Allen).
(Olena, 2006)

A typical example of ‘self-hating’ Jews is what appears to be the encouragement of anti-semitism through comedy, e.g Woody Allen, Sarah Silverman & Sacha Boran Cohen.

Using the example of Sacha Boran Cohen, who is proudly Jewish, and his film ‘Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan’ starring his farcical anti-Semitic character ‘Borat’ as the lead role, you have to question whether he is encouraging anti-semitic ideology or not.

Most would have some understanding of Jewish history and Cohens’ tongue-in-cheek humour and would clearly see that Cohen is using his comedic technique, to use humour to unmask the absurd prejudices and irrational side of anti-semitism, and other phobias born of ignorance and fear. However, in 2006 The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement expressing concerns of his boastful anti-semitism: ‘While Mr. Cohen's brand of humor may be tasteless and even offensive to some, we understand that the intent is to dash stereotypes, not to perpetuate them.  It is our hope that everyone in the audience will come away with an understanding that some types of comedy that work well on screen do not necessarily translate well in the real world -- especially when attempted on others through retelling or mimicry. We are concerned, (…) that one serious pitfall is that the audience may not always be sophisticated enough to get the joke, and that some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry’. (ADL, 2006)

As Paul Lewis points out in ‘Cracking Up: American Humor in a Time of Conflict’, irony and joke-making is not always a way of telling truth to power. In fact, it can be a conveniently slippery way of refusing to take responsibility for actions or utterances, a way of reinforcing the sorts of stereotypes that make the joker and his or her audience feel good at the expense of the butt of the joke. (2006, p.43)

The danger of comedy is that it can reinforce stereotypes and trivialise hatred as well as belittling it, allowing the critique of the haters that ‘they are a joke,’ but allowing them the excuse that ‘we were only joking.’ The ease with which a group of people were encouraged to sing along with Borats’ grossly racist ‘Throw the Jew Down the Well’ draws attention to antisemitism and its loathing, but it can also end up simply normalising it. (Friedman, 2006)

When using such words as ‘normalisation’ Barthes may agree that Cohen is entertaining his idea of myth here and according to the Telegraph columnist Richard Howes, 2006: ‘It's precisely because Borat is so funny that his stage anti-Semitism is so dangerous. People laugh, absorb it and internalise it. Postmodernist irony only gets you so far’.

Reflecting on Althussers theory of ‘Interpellation’ Cohen and other Jewish comedians recognise themselves in this anti-semitic ideology and are consequently acting as agents of repression, causing themselves to be unable to escape this ideology.

Barthes may also say that whilst Cohen is denoting anti-semitism he is trying to connote the reverse but is actually presenting a distorted image of reality and inadvertently promoting that which he seeks to condemn.

Bibliography

Althusser, L. (1970), ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses’ in Lenin and Philosophy and other Essays (1971), translated by Ben Brewster.

Anti-Defamation League, (2006) [Internet] Available from: [Accessed 30^th March 2009]

Barthes, R. (2000) ‘Mythologies’, London, Vintage.

Barthes, R. (1967) ‘Elements of Semiology’, London, Jonathan Cape

Barthes, R. (1974) ‘S/Z’, London, Jonathan Cape

Fiske, J. (1982) ‘Introduction to Communication Studies’. London, Routledge

Friedman, D. (2006) ‘Funny Anti-Semitism is Good for the Jews’ [Internet] Available from: New York, [Accessed 30^th March 2009]

Howes, R. (2006) ‘Borat and the anti-Semitism question’ [Internet] Available from: Telegraph Media Group Ltd. London[Accessed 30^th March 2009]

Lewis, P. (2006) ‘Cracking Up: American Humor in a time of conflict’  USA, The University of Chicago Press Ltd.

Marshall, G. (1998) ‘A Dictionary of Sociology: Interpellation’ [Internet]Available from: <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-interpellation.html>[Accessed 30^thMarch 2009]

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (2001) ‘The German Ideology Part One’, NY, International Publishers.

Microsoft (Encarta) ‘National Socialism’ [Internet] Online Encyclopedia 2008,Microsoft Corporation. Available from:[Accessed 30^thMarch 2009]

Olena, L. (2006) ‘The Phenomenon of the New Anti-Semitism’ [Internet] Missouri, US. Available from: [Accessed 30^th March 2009]

Robert Rozett & Shmuel Spector, G.G. (2002) ‘Encyclopedia of the Holocaust’, edited by The Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd. Jerusalem.

Saussure, F. (1974) ‘Course in General Linguistics’, London, Fontana.

Simpson, J. & Weiner, E. (2005) ‘Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English’, [Internet] Oxford University Press, Oxford, Available from: <http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/myth?view=uk>[Accessed 30^th March 2009]

Storey, J. (2006) ‘Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction’, 4^thed. Essex, Pearson Education Ltd.

Vogelsang, P. & Larsen, B. B. M. (2002) ‘The Nazi Ideology’ [Internet] The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Available from: < http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/nazismensideologi.asp> [Accessed 30^th March 2009]

Deconstructing Disney Princesses

Reflecting predominantly on the theories of Laura Mulvey, I will discuss how Disney can internalise a false ideology in young women, and will conclude with whether Disney justifies such an accusation.

In Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (1989), theorist Laura Mulvey would use psychoanalytic theory to demonstrate how patriarchal society has been used to structure women in films.

Mulvey argues how phallocentrism in film relies on the use of the image of a castrated female (passive female) to give order and meaning to its world, and ‘It is her lack that produces the phallus as a symbolic presence, it is her desire to make good the lack that the phallus signifies’ (Mulvey, 1989:p14)

Therefore the male protagonist is used as an authority figure to bring credibility to a film, no matter how small his part may be, his power is reinforced by the female protagonists weak and succumbing character that appears to idolise him. Even if a male interest is not physically present in the film his symbolism could appear as a phallus object and the passive female can then even be overshadowed by an inanimate object and she in turn feels the struggle to compensate for her own lack of signification.

Mulvey clarifies how women form the patriarchal unconscious and thereby join the symbolic order; ‘She first symbolises the castration threat by her real lack of a penis and secondly thereby raises her child into the symbolic. Once this has been achieved, her meaning in the process is at an end’ (Mulvey, 1989:p14)

Ultimately then, the main meaning of woman is sexual difference, the absence of a penis enforces the woman to justify her belonging in the patriarchal order by giving birth to a child that can continue this order.

In furthering Mulvey’s argument Berger observed that ‘according to usage and conventions which are at last being questioned but have by no means been overcome - men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at’ (Berger, 1972:p45,47)

He depicts how this ideology is internalised in young women and how by obtaining a man she can then only be recognised in society: ‘She has to survey everything she is and everything she does because how she appears to others, and ultimately how she appears to men, is of crucial importance for what is normally thought of as the success of her life. Her own sense of being in herself is supplanted by a sense of being appreciated as herself by another’ (Berger, 1972:p46)

Jack David Zipes talks of the use of phallic symbols in Disney. He notes Donald Crafton’s discussion of the topic in Before Mickey: The animated film 1898-1928 where Crafton argues that the early animators were nearly all men and would literally draw themselves into animation using their phallic pens and camera work as a phallic function. Crafton uses the example of Disney’s Alice in Wonderland where they employed a cat named Julius, ‘Who would take off his tail and use it as stick, weapon, rope, hook, question mark and so forth’ (Zipes, 1994:p78) Zipes argued that this was the ‘Phallic means to induce action and conceive a way out of a predicament’ (Zipes, 1994:p78)

Michele Aaron also links to Mulvey’s patriarchal order theory as she notes Freud’s female Oedipal story that theorizes the girls passage to maturity: ‘As the girls ‘change to femininity’, is marked by her shift from the clitoris to the vagina as the site of sexual pleasure: a shift from a female-identified self-pleasure to a pleasure in penetration (1991X:151). It is also marked by the transfer of her original attachment to her mother to her father: the male – the correct – object of desire. That this original attachment ‘ends in hate’ is essential to the transfer, for, as Freud asserts, the girl blames her mother for her own castrated state which she seeks to amend by gaining her fathers penis or its substitute, a baby (1991C:155)’ (Aaron, 2007:p38) Thereby this desire for the male phallus encourages the longing to join the symbolic order.

In considering further Mulvey’s theory of film as a patriarchal ideological institution she exposed the ways in which narrative cinema endowed men with empowerment and entrapped women in the opposing qualities. This was achieved through the mechanism of the gaze and her main charge was that the spectator subject was male, it was his look that was solicited and his ego that was massaged by films psychological strategies. Aaron argues that the psychological strategies in film revolve primarily around the female spectacle: ‘She functioned as both the locus for harnessing that male gaze and as the trigger for the re-enactment of his formative psychic processes’ (Aaron, 2007:p25)

Mulvey narrowly did not account for the female spectator in her thesis, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ (1989). She claimed that women can not be subjects and can not own the gaze and two that men can not be objects, they can not be gazed at, they can only look, and only look at women.

This contradicts all of Disney’s early classics where females play the part of the main protagonist and it is generally the female spectator that identifies with these female characters, the trouble with these heroines however was that their happiness was usually mired in misery that could only be salvaged by the prince.

In Mulvey’s follow up argument, ‘Afterthoughts on “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” (1989) Mulvey acknowledged the existence of the female spectator, however the options were still bleak where she could identify with the inevitable passive and masochistic female character such as Disney’s, Ursula the Sea Witch or the many other evil witches that played the role of Disney’s antagonist. The female spectator could only briefly borrow the male gaze and identify with the male character. Aaron argues that Mulvey’s female spectator was, thus, ‘Characterised by discomfort and restlessness as she alternated between one defeating alignment and another, between identification with the masochistic ‘heroine’ and the ill-fitting garb of the male gaze’ (Aaron, 2007:p36)

Chandler argues that both Neale and Richard Dyer (1982) also challenged the idea that the male is never the object in mainstream film and argued that the male will not only look at women and isn’t always in control of the gaze. Chandler suggests ‘It is widely noted that since the 1980s there has been an increasing display and sexualisation of the male body in mainstream cinema and television and in advertising’ (Moore 1987, Evans & Gamman 1995, Mort 1996, Edwards 1997). (www.aber.ac.uk)

Feminists Gamman and Marshment have also contested Mulvey’s pessimistic view of mainstream cinema, where they insist; ‘ It is not enough to dismiss popular culture as merely serving the complementary systems of capitalism and patriarchy ‘false consciousness’ to the duped masses. It can also be seen as a site where meanings are contested and where dominant ideologies can be disturbed’ (Storey, 2006:p106)

This image of Disney Princesses was altered by Jeff Brunner and although the original of this image can’t appear to be found, therefore we know little of what Brunner’s intentions or what influenced him to create this scathing review of some of Disney’s most classic creations were, it still managed to create mass waves of debate across media forums and blogs across the world.

Debate seems to have been split between mainly females that had grown up with such Disney tales and felt the need to defend their heroines, and parents that were going through the ‘I want to be a Princess’ stage and who were forced to re-watch the fairytales with an open and more cynical eye, to the point where everything Disney in their house was banned. (www.feministmormonhousewives.org) (www.feministing.com)

Parents were concerned about the false ideologies in Disney films and although their 5 year old had yet no conception of female oppression or male dominated culture they were worried that these false ideologies would be internalised.

An example of Mulvey’s patriarchal order could be used in Disney’s tale of The Little Mermaid where Ariel’s desire to be human leads her to visit the evil Sea Witch Ursula who grants her the wish of human legs in return for the sacrifice of her voice, consequently her wish can only be fulfilled by the kiss of her true love otherwise she will return to her former self.

Mulvey would argue that this resembles the image of a castrated woman where she first symbolises the castration threat by her lack of a penis and secondly relies upon ‘the maker’ the man to form her into the male other. Although in the story Ariel does not bear a child the signification of marriage is that she now has the possibility to raise a child to become the symbolic and as Mulvey argues, ‘Once this has been achieved her meaning in the process is at an end’, ‘She turns her child into the signifier of her own desire to possess a penis’ (Mulvey, 1989:p14)

Mulvey concludes, ‘Woman then stands in patriarchal culture as a signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his fantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer, not maker, of meaning’ (Mulvey, 1989:p15)

The Little Mermaid links clearly with Mulvey’s description of the ‘silent image of woman’ as she physically has to lose her voice to gain the acceptance of her true love and she physically and mentally has to make a sacrifice of losing her fish tail and never seeing her family and friends again for the chance at being truly happy. This could instil a false reality in young females of having to make great sacrifice in order to make themselves physically more attractive to win the love of a man.

Ariel plays the protagonist in The Little Mermaid as do most princesses such as Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella that gives the female viewer a chance to reflect herself onto the screen and identify somehow with the character giving a sense of empowerment to the viewer that this story is all about her, yet all these stories are contradicted by the fact that the actual part played by the princesses in overcoming some life obstacle is generally heavily influenced by the man. In Snow White only the kiss from her true love can awake her from the poisoned apple, whilst Sleeping Beauty is comatose for a good period of her film and again only true love’s kiss can awake her. This could give the example to young women that they are incapable of overcoming life’s obstacles without the influence of a man.

Laura Sells describes how the separation of the two worlds between land and sea in the film The Little Mermaid mirrors the unobtainable reflection of females into the ‘white male system’. (Sells, 1995:p177) Sells notes that according to Ann Wilson Schaef in Womens Reality (1981) ‘The white male system operates on several contradictory myths’ (Sells, 1995:p177)

Sells argues that at least two of these myths are relevant to the complementary worlds of this film. The first that ‘Nothing exists outside the white male system; and second, the white male system knows and understands everything’ (Sells, 1995:p178) Therefore those who are included in the white male system are oblivious to anything outside of it whilst those who are outside of it know about this ‘dominant culture’ as well as their own ‘marginalised culture’ (Sells,1995:p178)

These myths contradict themselves but relate to the Prince’s land world and that of Ariel’s sea world. This is due to the sea world being rendered invisible by the Prince’s land world whilst his is blessed with cultural certainty.

The spilt between the female and male world is frequently enforced through the language and imagery of “up there” and “down here”. Sells notes a key instance during Ariel’s song “Part of Your World” in which she desires to be “up there”. Sells claims that ‘The spatial imagery supports the hierarchy of dominant and muted cultures’ (Sells,1995:p178) this is done through popular uses of visual language in cinema where the viewpoint of the camera plays a key role in portraying the passiveness or dominance of the character; many camera shots give the audience the viewpoint of looking downward on Ariel and the other is seeing upward through Ariel’s eyes. Sells realises the resemblance of Georgia O’Keeffe paintings of sweeping seascapes and the female imagery of sea shells and cave openings.

As with most Disney movies that rarely follow the path of the original fairytale, which are far more dark and generally without happy endings, Disney has made a conscious decision to portray characters in such demeanours and is not merely visually recreating the original therefore many feminists are objectionable to Disney’s idealistic interpretations. In the original tale of The Little Mermaid (1837) by Hans Christian Anderson the mermaid dies because she regrets the sacrifice that she has made and wishes to return to being a mermaid but to do this she must slay her prince which she could not bring herself to do and therefore throws herself into the sea, but upon death she is rewarded for her good deeds and becomes ‘a daughter of the air’ claiming an immortal soul. In the Disney version the mermaid does not attain her self-actualisation where as Anderson’s version wanted the mermaid to earn a soul on her own and not as an attachment of someone else.

I believe it would be unfair to say that Disney has directly enforced these false ideologies in young women as Disney has merely capitalised on American innocence and utopianism of the social and political issues that related to the current era that the film was produced.

Films such as Snow White (1937) and Cinderella (1950) were both released in cultural eras where women were not at that time viewed as being oppressed and thought it nothing more than an achievement to be the loyal housewife, mother and part of the patriarchal order. Stacey would contend that; ‘Paradoxically, whilst commodity consumption for female spectators in mid to late 1950’s Britain concerns producing oneself as a desirable subject, it also offers an escape from what is perceived as the drudgery of domesticity and motherhood which increasingly comes to define femininity at this time. Thus, consumption may signify an assertion of self in opposition to the self sacrifice associated with marriage and motherhood in 1950’s Britain (238)’ (Storey, 2006:p108)

It is only now where feminism is of greater cultural interest that women have far more political and cultural freedom and we therefore look back with a critical view of the past.

However, it would be cynical to say that The Little Mermaid was accurately reflecting cultural society in 1989 and in even more recent Disney films such as Beauty and The Beast (1991) Disney did manage to produce a heroine of more substance and intelligence but dragged her into the social issue of domestic violence, where she chooses to stay with her beast that has captured her, swiftly falls in love with him regardless of his violence towards her and therefore inhabits the unfortunate stereotype of a wife that accepts her husband’s violence towards her because he tells her that he loves her afterwards.

On the contrary, Disney’s Mulan (1998) portrays the protagonist woman in the fight to be equal with men and thereby offers an encouraging role model to young women and a more accurate reflection of current society.

Disney classics such as Snow White and Cinderella have and will probably always remain popular with children, as our own nostalgic childhood memories of them will encourage us to share them with our children. However we must be aware that such films represent former politics and societies and if we want our children to understand this we must take into consideration the age at which we expose them to such films and entertainment and be prepared to sit down with them and question their false ideologies in relation to current society.

Bibliography

Aaron, M. (2007) Spectatorship: The power of looking, London, Wallflower Press

Bell, E. Haas, L. and Sells, L. (1995) From Mouse to Mermaid: The politics of film, gender and culture, Indiana, Indiana University Press

Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing, London, Penguin

Storey, J. (2006) ‘Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction’, 4^thed. Essex, Pearson Education Ltd.

Mulvey, L. (1989) Visual Pleasure and Other Pleasures, Hampshire, UK and NY, Palgrave

Zipes, J.E (1994) Fairy tale as myth/myth as fairy tale, Kentucky, The University Press of Kentucky

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze09.html (20/03/10)

 

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=231 (12/03/10)

http://feministtruths.blogspot.com/2008/11/disney-princesses-capitalism-and.html (11/03/10)

http://www.feministing.com/archives/018581.html (10/03/10)

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/10/target_women_do (11/03/10)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097757/ (19/03/10)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_(1989_film) (18/03/10)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsy3BblcjCA (12/03/10)

Task 6 Exhibition Review

In June 2009 Marks & Spencer celebrated its 125th anniversary by opening up an exhibition in the Centenary Gallery of Leeds University's Parkinson Building. The exhibition, curated by M&S archivists, displays M&S' journey from its penny bazaar market stall to becoming an international retailer.

It showcases how through each decade M&S has striven to become a part of British life from the clothes we wear, to the food we eat, through to the moral values we expect from businesses to day.

Considering the proposed 60,000 items to be archived in a purpose built location on the university campus, the initial modest exhibition space housed a small collection of M&S items from staff uniforms and key fashion pieces, to ad campaigns and WWII helmets that the staff would have worn in the event of an air raid.
The walls at opposing sides of the room were covered with customers feedback over the years and provided random but somewhat interesting facts from the population of women wearing M&S knickers to the number of fans on Facebook of Percy the Pig (which in case you weren't in the know are pink, pigs headed shaped sweets). There was even an interactive wall for visitors to write up their own current thoughts on M&S.

Walking around the exhibition, as a woman, you can't help but feel a slight bit of feminism creep up inside you, as you take in the cookie-cutter characters of housebound women displayed in adverts, illustrating a time when men and women's roles appeared so simple. Not to mention the display of letters written to M&S that give a somewhat deranged but comical view of the average female customer, who felt the need to comment about their day to day experiences with their M&S purchases; "I got a dress from one of your stores, nothing wrong with the dress but...I couldn't get the fastener open and had to go ask a policeman on duty to help me...after a full hours struggle he had to tear the dress off...I can see the funny side of it now, but I was red in the face trying to free that zip".

Altogether, the most entertaining part of the exhibition was the M&S representative that guided you through each M&S piece of each history. A camp and witty fellow, he provided many of M&S's life's quips from ridiculous customer stories to some of M&S's somewhat amusing adverts. 

What was most likeable about the exhibition was that along with the M&S rep, it didn't seem to take itself too seriously and provided an encapsulated view of how a humble northern market stall can grow to become a household name amongst British middle class culture.