Standpoint Theory and Aladdin

                Researchers and commentators on society have always had a difficult time approaching certain issues from an unbiased point of view. This is where the idea of Standpoint Theory comes in. Standpoint Theory suggests that the perspectives of those who have a high social location–often including males, heterosexuals, and the rich–are usually less objective by nature than the perspectives of those with a lower social location.

                Disney’s Aladdin (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103639/) deals with exactly this idea, though the film never uses the term. The classic animated film features a impoverished young man who falls in love with a princess after running into her while she is disguised as a street urchin. Princess Jasmine, however, can only marry a prince. After discovering a magic lamp, Aladdin is able to become a prince in order to marry her. Once it is discovered that Aladdin is not the prince he claims to be, Jasmine must decide how to make their love work.

                Although Disney films do not typically bring to mind social theories, Aladdin accesses Standpoint Theory in order to carry out its story. Sandra Harding and Julia T. Wood explain Standpoint Theory as a way to understand objectivity in relation to the social hierarchy (http://www.afirstlook.com/edition_7/theory_resources/Standpoint_Theory). Griffin explains, “If all knowledge is tainted by the social location of the knower, then we would do well to start our search for truth from the perspective of people who are most sensitive to inequities of power. They will have the least to lose if findings challenge the status quo” (457-58). Particularly focusing on the standpoint of women, Harding and Wood bring forward the otherwise unvoiced opinions, positing that marginalized or oppressed viewpoints are less likely to recognize certain patterns of behavior which might be deemed unfair or one-sided. Standpoint Theory highlights these unheard voices, allowing them to challenge the status quo set forth (typically) by white, heterosexual males. (452-53)

                One of the major themes within Aladdin revolves around the concept of changing perspectives. The most notable connection to Standpoint Theory presents itself when Jasmine decides to leave the protection of the palace and explore her city–which is extremely poverty-stricken. Having grown up around wealth, Jasmine does not understand the economic sphere or the concept of poverty. While in the marketplace, she finds herself in trouble when she gives away a piece of fruit to a poor, young girl. When she does not have any money to pay for the apple, the merchant threatens to cut off her hand. This encounter–particularly her ignorance of the poverty in her city–demonstrates Harding and Wood’s message. Having never experienced the perspective of the poor, Jasmine now has an understanding of the harshness of the world. She comes closer to an objective standpoint by identifying with the poor, and she learns that despite the great palace which usually surrounds her, her kingdom is not nearly as peaceful as she had once thought.

                After receiving the lamp and wishing his way out of poverty, Aladdin–coming from an objective point of view as a person low on the social scale–enters the princess’s world and is able to objectively determine that life in the palace holds numerous unjust problems. Primarily, Aladdin–having been allowed to do as he pleased as a street urchin–sees Jasmine’s inability to choose her suitor as unfair. The sultan, who grew up around this custom, is unable to see this limitation as a problem. It should be noted that Jasmine, who also grew up within this system, sees the injustice within the custom. According to Standpoint Theory, the connection between these differing viewpoints is simple: social hierarchy determines the objectivity of the situation. The sultan is at the top of the social hierarchy, and therefore his view is the least objective. Jasmine, being a wealthy woman, is situated just below the sultan, and–although her view is still biased surrounding certain issues, she is able to objectively see this issue. Aladdin, who is the lowest in the social hierarchy, is able to objectively see most issues.  The differences in views can be seen as a direct comparison to Harding and Wood’s work.

                Aladdin demonstrates this theory in an unlikely way, utilizing academia to promote “walking a mile in someone else’s shoes.” Although Harding and Wood focus primarily on the theory’s significance in relation to a feminist view of the world, the theory strongly applies to the Disney classic, helping viewers to understand the differing viewpoints based on social status.

Works Cited

Aladdin. Dir. John Musker and Ron Clements. By John Musker. Perf. Scott Weinger, Robin Williams, and Linda Larkin. Buena Vista Pictures, 1992.

Griffin, Emory A. A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.

Thank You for Smoking and Agenda-Setting Theory

                During the Watergate Scandal, Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw established the Agenda-Setting Theory, showing the correlation between what is on the news and what the public determines as important. Through their research, they challenged whether the news stations at the time were originally catering to the general public agenda or if they were deciding what was “news worthy” for the public. (Griffin 378-79)

                This debate has continued ever since, and many researchers have determined that the answer varies; sometimes the news is reporting a certain topic because the public finds value in it, but other times the public finds value in a topic because the news reports it. One film which plays with this chicken-egg concept is the 2005 comedy by Jason Reitman, Thank You for Smoking. The film features Nick Naylor, a prominent lobbyist for the tobacco industry, and his struggle with maintaining a positive image within society. After an affair with a reporter, some of his darkest secrets make the front page, destroying his reputation and ending his job. In the end, he is offered his job back, but he turns down the opportunity, having grown enough to realize that he is done working for the tobacco industry.

                The film addresses McCombs and Shaw’s theory of Agenda-Setting in multiple ways. The most direct way to see the connection is by examining the reporter’s story. Much like a tabloid, the story makes public some intimate details about Nick, such as his friendship with the “MOD Squad” – short for “Merchants of Death.” The group of friends meets weekly for lunch, bickering about whose job is the most difficult; the group is made up of Nick, a lobbyist for the alcohol business, and a lobbyist for a pro-gun association. Although most would not disagree that bragging about the number of deaths associated with the product you represent is a class-A citizen sort-of-thing to do, this detail destroys Nick’s public relations and ends his job because the media decided it was a big deal; all in all, though, Reitman challenges the audience to evaluate whether or not Nick’s involvement with the MOD Squad is unethical or simply a little distasteful. Nick’s scandal is an example of what McCombs and Shaw discuss; in this case, the media tells the viewer what to care about.

                Another connection to Agenda-Setting arises when Nick visits Jeff, a man in marketing, about integrating cigarettes into films. At one point during their meeting, Nick asks Jeff if he will have any sort of moral issue promoting tobacco use in his films. Jeff replies that he would actually feel more of a moral problem if he decided not to promote tobacco use; he explains that working in the media, if he were to censor himself, it would be “morally presumptuous.” Jeff’s concept of determining what and what not is important for the audience is a reference to Agenda-Setting; if Jeff were to censor himself and his products because of a moral stance, he would be doing exactly what McCombs and Shaw described–he would be telling his audience what to think.

Here's the discussion from the film about what the media's role in determining public opinion should be. Enjoy!

                Throughout the film, the characters have to grapple with the media, determining how to spin their stories in good ways. In this way, the film relies extremely heavily on the manipulation of the media as well as the manipulation of the general public’s views. Although Reitman may not have explicitly had McCombs, Shaw, and Agenda-Setting in mind when he wrote his film, Thank You for Smoking dives straight into the topic, bringing the media’s ability to manipulate into the limelight–an ironic twist unto itself.

Works Cited

Thank You for Smoking. Dir. Jason Reitman. Perf. Robert Duvall, William H. Macy, Cameron Bright, Adam Brody, Aaron Eckhart, and Maria Bello. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2006. DVD.

Griffin, Emory A. A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.

Genderlect and Good Will Hunting

Deborah Tannen’s theory of the Genderlect poses that men and women essentially come from separate cultures, and the discourse between these two cultures will reflect entirely different motivations and thought processes. More specifically, she discusses the innate female “desire for connection” versus the male “desire for status” as well as “rapport talk” versus “report talk,” suggesting that each gender not only has a different method of speaking or arguing but often a completely different agenda, as well (Griffin 438). By examining the tendencies of each gender, Tannen posits that we can more fully understand the interworkings and expectations of each gender; the cultural differences between the groups should be recognized in order to communicate effectively.

                Gus Van Sant’s classic 1997 coming-of-age drama, Good Will Hunting, displays many of Tannen’s observations about each gender. The film features an underprivileged genius named “Will” who works as a janitor at MIT. After getting into a fight, Will is ordered by the court to attend a counseling session each week as well as work one-on-one with a mathematics professor in an attempt to turn his life around. After a thorough search for the appropriate counselor, he connects with Sean Macguire, a therapist who shares a similarly rough background with Will; through their sessions, we learn about Will’s history of being abused by his foster parents and various other atrocious events. Over the course of the film, Will eventually learns he needs to reevaluate what is important in life, ultimately deciding to leave his home town in search of a better life.

Here's the really cheesy '90s trailer for the film.

                A secondary plot within the film revolves around a female student at MIT, Skylar. She serves as a foil to Will, showing the audience Will’s flaws; where Will hides his past about his family in order to shy away from serious subjects, Skylar prods at him, hoping to achieve a deeper connection. Paralleling Tannen’s work, one scene in particular shows the male’s drive for status versus the female’s desire for connection. When Skylar’s character is first introduced, she is at a bar being hit on by numerous men. At one point, a student begins reciting some information about history in an attempt to show his intellect. Will–who is somewhat aggressive by nature–calls the student out on the fact that he is simply reciting another scholar’s work, not thinking for himself or giving the appropriate credit. The scene continues, and Will eventually tears apart everything the student has to say, making him look incredibly unintelligent; the student is defeated, and he leaves. Although Will impresses Skylar with his impromptu debate, Will is significantly more interested in dominating over his opponent than he is connecting with Skylar, and Skylar is the one who eventually has to re-approach Will to ask him out on a date. This scene illustrates Tannen’s argument that women strive for connection while men strive for status.

                Skylar and Will continue demonstrating Tannen’s ideals after they have been dating for quite some time. The ways through which they each show affection for the other matches Tannen’s concept of “rapport vs. report talk.” Tannen states that women tend to chat, discussing intimate details about their lives, but men tend to give information and remain solemn. Whether or not I agree with Tannen’s suggestion that these tendencies are associated explicitly with gender, the affection between Will and Skylar reflects Tannen’s theory of the Genderlect. Throughout much of the film, Skylar simply attempts to connect with Will on a deeper level. In a few scenes in particular, she and Will discuss his family, and he lies to her, making up a story about ten brothers and telling her that she can meet them one day. While Skylar’s rapport–attempting to get Will to open up to her–was her way of showing her affection (that is, she wants to know about his personal life), he finds it threatening. Instead, his way of showing affection is demonstrated when he does Skylar’s homework for her in order for her to have a free afternoon–a very concrete way for him to show that he wants to be close to her. This difference in relational mechanics demonstrates Tannen’s theory of the Genderlect.

                Tannen’s theory of the Genderlect shows some of the differences between the way men and women talk and get along, and Good Will Hunting backs up her theory rather well. Where she suggests that men don’t want to open up, Will illustrates this trait throughout the majority of the film. In fact, one of the major underlying struggles presented by the film is the clash between what women want and what men want. The film ends after Will comes to understand that Skylar is the deepest connection he’s ever had, and he determines he should leave his life behind in order to chase after her. While Van Sant may not have necessarily had Tannen in mind when he made his film, her theory of the Genderlect proves strong throughout the film, making a cast of relatable, understandable characters.

Works Cited

Good Will Hunting. Dir. Gus Van Sant. By Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Perf. Robin Williams, Matt Damon, and Ben Affleck. Miramax Films, 1997. DVD.

Griffin, Emory A. A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.

Relational Development and Office Space

Relational Development is a funny thing, and so is the 1999 film, Office Space. Why are these two topics humorous? Well, each have numerous reasons why they are funny:

Relational Development is funny because:

• it’s an intuitive theory about the way we talk to each other.
• by its nature of being intuitive and not fact based, it is kind of limiting.
• it shows up all across our lives, especially within the media

Office Space is funny because:

• it was written and directed by Mike Judge, the creator of King of the Hill.
• it features a hypnotherapy session gone bad.
• Jennifer Aniston actually does a great job, and that’s just unexpected.

Now that we know why both of these are funny, let’s talk about them more.

         

Relational Development

          The developer of the Relational Development model, Knapp, observed lots of relationships of all sorts, and then decided that there were certain aspects of the way that each relationship developed that stood consistent throughout each relationship.

For example, whenever you go out on a date for the first time, there is a sort of expected procedure you will probably follow in order to get a positive reaction from the other person: “Hi. I’m Chris. I am in school. I like to go to the zoo.”

          And there tended to be expected procedures not only just at the beginning of the relationship, but all throughout it. “Our trip to the zoo was a bust, so I’m breaking up with you. I can’t believe you don’t like giraffes.” (Note: there really is NO reason NOT to like giraffes. Have you ever seen them fight?)

            Basically, Knapp broke down all of these different tendencies into ten different stages that fit into Initiating, Together, or Coming Apart. These three groups kind of overlap sometimes (see: speed dating), but for the most part, the stages fit pretty well together. (Griffin 111-12)

Office Space

Office Space is about Peter, an average guy who is unhappy with his job. Through some strange coincidences, he ends up in a hypnotherapy session with his cheating girlfriend, and right after the therapist gets him into a deep stage of relaxation, the therapist dies of a heart attack, leaving Peter in his deeply relaxed state. From there, he decides to ask out the waitress he’s had a crush on forever, he quits going to work, and he just quits giving a damn altogether. Eventually, he gets promoted at work, and his friends are set to get fired–even though it’s Peter who isn’t going to work. In order to get back at the company, Peter convinces his friends to implement a virus that would rip off the company big time, but because of the nature of the virus, they won’t get caught. Or so they think. Everything goes wrong, and it’s just silly. Well worth the watch.

On the surface, these two topics don’t seem to go together very well. With a little knowledge about the film, however, they work extremely well together. One of the major ways that Judge gets laughs throughout the film is by recognizing and poking fun at the ways we initiate conversation; if, according to Relational Development, we keep doing it the same way, over and over, doesn’t it just get funny after a while?

Additionally, many relationships come to an end. Peter’s waitress girlfriend also hates her job, and she decides to quit. As part of her exit, she flips the bird to her coworkers, her boss, and the customers: classic Relational Development tendency for terminating a relationship (not specifically mentioned by Knapp, but my intuition tells me so. For the record, I can’t blame her. This is what she has to put up with every day:

And in this way, Mike Judge makes Relational Development a funny thing. It’s very possible that even after I described Relational Development, you didn’t see why it’s funny; now, hopefully, you do. It’s the reason why we keep running into the same relationship problems. It’s the reason that things get stale. It’s the reason we laugh at poor Peter’s problems.

Also, this:

Works Cited
Griffin, Emory A. A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.