Sociology Alert! The Supreme Court Rulings Part 2

D.O.M.A. is DEAD!

On June 26, 2013 in a 5-4 vote.  The US Supreme Court struck down The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that was signed into law in 1996 by Former President Bill Clinton.  This was part of Clinton's (surprising) one two punch to same sex and alternative sexuality individuals and advocates. The other being  the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) that was also recently repealed.  This matters, and it matters a lot.
         The United States has a history of discrimination against non-heterosexual people.  In fact our cultural and socialization practices reinforce and reward heterosexuality, making it invisible, expected, a norm.  Hetero-normativity also referred to as "straight" privilege ( though I am wary to use the word "straight" as it too is used as a normative term) has been supported by legislation (and the elite that control legislation); even when a majority of Americans overwhelmingly support same sexy rights, specifically marriage (around 86% of the US population).  Now that is not the case, this is a BIG Win for equality and a step forward toward eliminating the ridged sexual binary structure we live in. 

         Supporters of Civil-Liberties in California can also celebrate, that in a separate ruling, it was determined that supporters of Prop 8 did not have a sufficient case to bring before the court.

         In other News, Texas Senator Wendy Davis is Awesome! For 13 hours she filibustered in sweet pink sneakers  to make sure a extremely restrictive abortion bill would not become law.  The way she gestured to the crowd signaling her victory reminded me of Katniss Everdeen. So, show her some love

         However, this joy must be tempered.  One needs to acknowledge the troubling schizophrenia of the US Supreme Court's rulings this week.  Yes we got lucky (5-4 is lucky) with the end of DOMA but at the cost of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).  Sociologist know all too well that just saying that people are equal ( through legislation) doesn't make it so ( e.g. the ADA of 1990).  We are still living in a white elite hetero-normative, able-bodied culture that is well represented in the amount of backlash we see from the public: here       But at least this is a ray of sunshine, in the bleak dark culture before us.

THIS CONCLUDES THE SOCIOLOGY ALERT WE WILL NOW GO BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED TOPICS :)

Sociology Alert! The Supreme Court Rulings Part 1

Approaching the end of their session, the US Supreme Court this week is handing down rapid fire judgment on a number of controversial court cases.

      On Monday, June 24th 2013.  In a 7-1 vote, The US Supreme Court decided to kick back the case against affirmative action policies for college admissions to the US Court of Appeals.  In a previous ruling, the lower court sided with the University of Texas, keeping the affirmative action policies in place.  While I consider this to be a win for equality and non discrimination, the Court's reaction to this case fills me with dread.  Like a warning shot, the reaction to this case, not to mention public opinion, has made ANY affirmative action policy more skeptical.  Thereby adding to the scrutiny of colleges and universities for their Affirmative action policies regarding admissions.
       College admissions work on a point system.  An applicant gets a certain number of points for GPA, for extracurricular activities (e.g. sports and academic clubs etc.) for race (ala affirmative action), low income, and for family connections (Ever wonder why the application asks if you ever had a family member attend the school?). The points are added together and the higher the total points, the more attractive the applicant looks to the school.  
         The issue, that few people realize, is that the points aren't allocated evenly.  A person who has a family member who completed a degree at the school, and/or has a family member that is an active (giving money) alumni are given more points. In fact, those points are MORE than the points allocated for Affirmative action (i.e. race). Even though black and Hispanic/latino students still make up only 13 percent of students at highly selective universities (like the University of Texas), white students with lower test scores are twice as likely to be admitted into some of the same schools. These are examples of white privilege.
         White Privilege is the systemic validation of the white-angelo culture and whiteness; resulting in greater access to opportunities and availability of resources for people who are white. In our US social structure, white privilege has become normalized. This is privilege is fueled by racial and cultural stereotypes that expect whites to do better than people of color.  Therefore, when some young, fairly bright white girl doesn't get into her first choice of colleges, everyone cries "foul", and blames social policies that assist people of color. Why?  Because, Affirmative Action policies are the only way that people of color can EVER out perform whites in the mind of its detractors.    Equally ludicrous is the idea that these policies give black and brown folks privilege above those who are white. This idea is common in a "colorblind" society like the United States.
        "Colorblindness" (i.e. not seeing skin color) is a term that is often used by the white majority to identify their experience with people of color. The idea is that by being colorblind, people are treating everyone the same. The result is however, that people of color are then evaluated by white standards of access to available resources, and opportunities. Thus, if a person of color doesn't "measure up", it's the individual's fault (because "everyone is equal"). The reality is that skin color matters (some examples I have mentioned above), and because it matters, any person, structure or institution, that denies this is ignoring the history and current experience of people of color, and oblivious to their own privilege like Abigail Fisher.   

    On Tuesday, June 25th 2013, in a 5-4 vote, The US Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of The Voting Rights Act of 1965.(VRA) Section 4 pertains to coverage jurisdictions under the VRA and how those jurisdictions qualify for coverage.  In the ruling, The US Supreme Court decided that the formula used to determine the covered jurisdictions is outdated, and unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court will allow Congress to come up with a new formula; but considering that the current Congress has a history of being deadlocked (unless they are faced with upsetting the travel plans of the rich white elite) this will inevitably make Section 5 of the VRA (that any covered jurisdiction must get federal approval before making changes to voting practices) toothless. 
      The repercussions of this could be vast and widespread. Section 5 was used late last year to strike down mandatory voter ID cards from going into immediate effect.  Without it, states could not only implement harsher ID requirements, but also redistrict and reset polling places without federal approval, resulting in the increased voter suppression of the poor and people of color.
     The US Supreme Court, in their ruling, emphasized that while Section 4 of the VRA is unconstitutional and Section 5 is worthless, Section 2 (that protects against discrimination and ensures the right to vote) is still in place.  By this statement it is obvious that the US Supreme Court ( at least 5 of them anyway) do not see how these two things are connected, especially when talking about the poor and people of color. Under  the new rules while people of color and the poor still have the right to vote, how can they exercise that right if they have to travel long distances (a lot of times with out a car), wait in long lines, give up a days wage, find a babysitter, and have the proper ID? This is, yet again, another form of covert structural racism. The more difficult you make it for people to vote, the less likely those people are to vote again.  This is not only invalidating the voices of the poor and the equally disenfranchised, but allowing policy decisions to be made by the elite few. Thus, our so called "republic" has been transformed into a financial oligarchy.

Part 2 coming soon...           
        

'Man of Steel' Review Part II: Social analysis of an Icon

          On the way home from a screening of 'Man of Steel' (see my review of the film), in an attempt to understand the horror show we'd just witnessed, the question came up "Why is it so hard to get Superman "right"?  A good friend of mine postulated that perhaps Superman (as I see him)  is too "old fashioned", that he doesn't resonate with today's audience. Therefore, we get a Superman in 'Man of Steel that is angst ridden and unsure of himself because that is a reflection of the current (youth) culture.  I agreed, but added that what makes Superman seem "old fashioned" is that he is inherently good, and infallible; making him less relatable than say...Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker.
          Ironically, being good seems to alienate (pun intended) Superman from a lot of people, particularly in the mainstream. Unfortunately, movies (as cultural products) are reflecting the mainstream notion that character complexity is only achieved through flaws, defects, or psychosis/mental illness.  This "humanizing"(as it's called) often involves sympathy...something very hard to do with a white, male heterosexual able-bodied all powerful GOD. However, the success of  'Man of Steel's Superman being relatable comes at the cost of other problematic messages about immigration, religion, masculinity and feminism that are embedded in the film.
    
Immigration

         One of two ways that Superman's story can be understood is as an allegory to US immigration. Superman was created in 1933 by Jerry Siegel and Joel Shuster two young Jewish immigrants and it was their hope to portray Superman as a cosmic immigrant.  Superman's, or to be more specific, Clark Kent/Kal-el's story is one that fits Cultural and Structural Assimilation theories of race and ethnicity.  Clark has become culturally assimilated by adopting the cultural practices, rituals, behaviors and interests of [the host culture] Earth (specifically the United States) while minimizing display of or reliance on their home culture ( Krypton).  Also Clark/ Kal-el has structurally assimilated by having a job at the Daily Planet, and paying taxes etc. It is through these assimilation practices, (that are only fully possible because he is a White male) that he becomes a model immigrant...and the poster child for US freedom and equality.
       This pro-American, fully assimilated image is blatantly presented in 'Man of Steel' by the way that he (violently) rejects Zod and the other Kryptonians.  The message here is that through the process of assimilation, Superman has "transcended" his race (culture), that "elevates" him above the other Kryptonians. He is not "like the rest of them"(a not so subtle racist statement).  This transcendence is even presented visually through costumes.  While the other Kryptonians are often faceless and/or dressed in black, Superman is wearing clothes bathed in the colors of his adopted world (Specifically the US).  Also, toward the end of the film, this assimilation is verbalized when Superman tells a General (who is worried about Superman's allegiance to the US) that he "Grew up in Kansas" and is "as American as [a person] can get". Not only does this dialogue narrow the scope of Superman (not caring for the world) it also conjures up frightening images of a militarized Superman who works at the behest of the US government (ala Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns") becoming the "weapon of the west" regardless if it is on "his terms" or not.     

It is refreshing however that in the current conversation there has been a lot of emphasis on Superman's undocumented status

Religion

         The other way that the Superman story can be interpreted is as a Christian allegory.  It is this interpretation that is the most visible and referenced.   The parallels are richly available: "God (Jor-el) gave the world his only son (Kal-el) to save humanity and die (which Superman has done on more than one occasion)." He will have apostles (the Justice League) he will perform miracles and be the light of hope to show people the way. 
         The major issue with this Religious interpretation of Superman (who's origin has added parallels with Moses) is that it is the quintessential "white savior" trope that you find in A LOT of entertainment and popular culture.  This "white savior" trope  has its beginnings in the Roman Catholic church depicting Jesus as a white man. This was used as a mechanism for imperialism thereby effectively ignoring the geography, culture and climate that surrounds Bethlehem and the people who live there (i.e. if Jesus existed he wouldn't be white).
        Superman, like Jesus, is white; therefore his importance, and the importance of his story, is never questioned. This is a form of white privilege. Stories that have the most complexity and deep character development are USUALLY about white people.  The majority of stories that are written, produced and marketed, are white stories.  This has become, as Foucault would say, a normalizing norm, something that isn't questioned, even to the point that people of color are more willing to see stories about people who are white (in part because of the lack of representation) than the opposite.
    In 'Man of Steel' we are often over saturated with the Christ allegory/imagery.  Whether that be the swooping shots of Superman flying or the reverence and majesty the camera is trying to convey as he gently floats in the air.  In one particular scene, just before surrendering to the US military, Clark visits a church and talks with a priest.  While Clark is in the foreground, in the background are stained glass pictures of White Jesus.  This reinforces the value of whiteness, making him seem more trustworthy...more God-like.

Masculinity    

       Throughout the process of Gender Socialization, that begins before birth and  continues till death, American boys are constantly getting the stereotypical messages that they need to be bigger, stronger, faster etc.  They need to use that strength to provide and to protect their loved ones.  That protection and provision is usually achieved through violence.  Violence then becomes a learned mechanism of self and emotional expression in young men. Since many other avenues of emotional self expression are often closed off to American boys (crying, displays of tenderness and romance, fear etc.), many of their emotions are expressed through physical and often violent acts.    Superman, especially the Superman in 'Man of Steel' is the epitome of Manliness, as Nietzsche calls it "ubermensch", going above and beyond solidifying these negative masculine stereotypes.
     In the marketing and lead up to the film, many reviewers and fans have cited Henry Cavil's physical size, workout regimen, and hairiness, as well as his performance in action scenes in the film, as indicators of Superman's regained Masculinity.  This is something that both fans and critics thought was lost after 'Superman Returns'.  This was also a not-so-subtle jab at Director Bryan Singer (who is openly gay) for emasculating Superman in their eyes.  I constantly heard or read about hopes that Henry Cavil's Superman would "punch something" to "give Superman his balls back." or "be a Man's Man."   Based on these sentiments, and the "destruction- porn" that makes up the last hour of the film, Superman was very masculine in 'Man of Steel'. However, it is a  type of masculinity that arrests men in an emotionally stunted state of perpetual adolescence where explosions are cool, women are things, and real men communicate with their fists.

Feminism
    Feminism is a socio-political movement that seeks to improve the lives of women through access to available resources and seeking justice for multiple and various forms of discrimination both at the individual and the structural level.  While there are many different branches of feminism (each with their own focus and issues that they champion), in general, feminism believes that achieving equality for all women will benefit everyone within society ((cis)men, (cis)women, trans, queer, gay, non-gay, disabled, and non-disabled, asexual, inter-sexed, etc.).
     Unfortunately, there has been a trend in popular culture lately where the words feminism and empowerment are often labels that are used to repackage old sexist tropes, namely Damsel in Distress, and the Masculine Heroine. The Damsel in Distress is a plot device in which a female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she cannot escape on her own and must then be rescued by a male character, usually providing a core incentive or motivation for the protagonist’s quest. The Masculine Heroine is essentially a male character ( with all the trappings of masculinity) in a female body. This is not an exhaustive list of all the types of faux-feminist tropes that exist in media, but theses are the tropes that exist in 'Man of Steel'
      The Damsel in Distress trope is embodied by Lois Lane.  While they attempt to make it seem like Lois is more with a couple of lines of dialogue early in the film, her entire arc surrounds Clark/Kal-el, she has no growth as a character (aside from starting a relationship) and she never escapes a dangerous situation on her own without the help of a man, whether that be either Clark/Kal-el or Jor-el.
     The Masculine Heroine trope is embodied by Faora.  Yes, they did give her a 1 second scene of tenderness when she reacts to the destruction of Krypton, but aside from that she was hyper masculine, cold and calculating which is common in entertainment media depicting women of power.  The assumption here is that emotions are both a sign of and will lead to weakness.
     
The Non Relatable Superman   
    As I have mapped out the cost of the relatable Superman in 'Man of Steel', it is my contention that Superman shouldn't be relatable, because he isn't.  He 's an alien. An alien that learned the best values humanity has, and internalized them.  Superman isn't relatable because he is better than humanity, he can maintain a moral and ethical code without fault or compromise.  Therefore, he can't be relatable because we all should aspire to treat people how he treats people.  He is a paragon,  an example of what we could, and should be. If only we were a little nicer, more courageous, valued altruism and were less petty.  As I look to the future, I can only hope.

'Man of Steel' Review

Author's Note: This is going to be the first in a two part review for Zack Snyder's 'Man of Steel'.  Part 1 ( see below) will focus on my critique of the movie itself, while part 2, will focus on the broader sociological and cultural implications that the film presents (written at a later date).

To quote my favorite fictional archeologist..."Spoilers."

Man of Steel...Feet of Lead.

          Superman was a big part of my childhood. I grew up in the 1980's, so my first real exposure to Superman was through the VCR (video cassette recorder, for you youngsters). As a child with a disability, when I first laid eyes on "the big blue boy-scout", I was hooked. Superman was not only my first superhero, but it was the first time I dreamed about being something more, beyond the physical limitations that were in front of me. Limitations that I believed shackled me, and made feel worthless.  When I saw Superman, for the first time, I strived to want more, to be better. Like him, I wanted to soar.  I can not count the number of times I made my parents rent and watch the Christopher Reeve Superman series (Probably about as many times as my nephew has seen Car 2...which is to say A LOT).   I even had a home-made Superman costume that I wore everywhere.  As you may assume, I have a lot of reverence for the character of Superman both personally and as a cultural Icon. However,  Zack Snyder's 'Man of Steel' is such a bloated, shaky, incoherent mess, it robs Superman of his majesty, grace, morality, and above all...hope. Snyder "accomplishes" this through a disjointed plot, two- dimensional/underdeveloped characters, poorly written dialogue and sloppy direction.
             The story begins on Krypton with Lara Lor-Van in labor. This is where the problems start. The birth of Kal-L (AKA Superman) is the first natural childbirth in centuries on Krypton. We are never told why this is important.  Are we to assume that it is this "naturalness" that allows Kal-L to be infused with the codex ( a "key" that holds the genetic code of all Kryptonians)?  Or are we to assume that this trait makes him more powerful than the other "synthetic" Kryptonians? Though we are lead to believe his authenticity is significant, it is a plot point that goes nowhere. Unfortunately this "road to nowhere" becomes a running theme through the whole film.
              Not only has the planet of Krypton had an embargo on natural childbirth, but each of the "synthetic" Kryptonians is grown for a single purpose: "Some are warriors, others are scientists" we are told.  But two minutes later, we see someone who is both a scientist AND a warrior. I do not have a problem adding to, or changing aspects of a story from its source material (especially one so rich as Superman's) but at least stick to the rules that you set.
             Detracting more from the origin that even the general public is familiar with, Krypton's destruction does not come at the hands of a supernova, but through resource depletion. This change IS one of significance. It reduces the tragedy of Krypton from one of great loss (a civilization wiped out by an unavoidable astral event) to one of ecological retribution (strip the planet bare and pay the consequences) Added to this is the unnecessary change of Krypton's star NOT being a RED sun.  Visibly, the sun looks YELLOW and in the film it is heavily implied (though never stated) that Krypton's sun is Yellow but older than the sun on earth. It is this difference which allows Kryptonian physiology to absorb its radiation...granting powers). As these significant and unnecessary differences began to mount, I started to get angry.
            That anger would not be swayed by the film's non-linear story structure.  Now being a BIG Christopher Nolan Fan, I am used to non-linear story structure.  When it is done well and it serves a purpose, it can make a good script great.  In 'Man of Steel' however, it makes it worse. From a shot of the rocket ship hurling past the moon toward earth, we flash forward 33 years to loner Clark (AKA "Hobo-Superman") on a shrimp boat. These time skips do not just happen once, but several times throughout the film. Occurring inexplicably out of nowhere, these flashbacks are out of sequence even with themselves! Some characters are in one flashback and show up again a couple of flashbacks later. One character even dies (in a "scene" that falls flat) and then shows up again later.  Superman's story told in this way leaves the audience caring for no one.  So little time was spent with each character ( especially with Clark in his formative years) that I found myself devoid of feeling for any of the faces I saw on screen. That is, if I could see those faces during the film's battle sequences.
           The action/fight/battle sequences of this film can be explained as a hour long demonstration of CGI technology. Additionally, the fast cutting and computerized quick zooms are so frequent that it makes it difficult to follow the action, and any attempt leads to nausea.  Thirdly, these action scenes do not have any consequences.  We do not see (or are supposed to care about) the potentially tens of thousands of people who where killed during the battles of Smallville and Metropolis. Also, immediately after the final battle, we are treated to Clark's introduction to the Daily Planet with no one having ANY repercussions from what they've just lived through.  Finally, the constant barrage of action (without breaks) leads to fatigue.  I may be in the minority here, but I can see "God-like Beings" fight for only so long before it becomes repetitive. I am all for action, but show me something different. Superman gets his cape used against him so many times in this film I would think he'll get rid of it for 'Man of Steel 2' (Yes, that's happening). Besides, if I don't care about the characters (or who they're played by) why do I care if they are in danger.       
           I have never sat through such a horrible film with such a star powered (and usually) talented cast.  None of the characters had ANY chemistry with each other, especially Cavil and Adams. Watching their "blossoming romance" unfold on screen was about as passionate as watching paint dry.  Rounding out the main cast is Michael Shannon's General Zod (giving a one note stereotypical villainous turn) and Russell Crowe's Jor-L (which is equally monotone). Trying to support these performances is The Daily Planet staff ( which besides Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) I can't remember their names) and the Kents.  Diane Lane ( Martha Kent) does the best job, far better than Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent who, rather than be the origin and focal point of Clark's morality, teaches his adopted son fear and paranoia just before being killed needlessly by a tornado.  Given the combined body of work of many of these actors; I have to blame writer David Goyer and Director Zack Snyder  for not giving them much to work with in regards to script and direction.
          As well as David Goyer is supposed to know Superman, I am shocked at how much his script is a misstep. For a 2hr 23min film there is a shocking lack of dialogue.  When characters do speak it doesn't seem authentic to the world the filmmakers are trying to create.  It is stilted, with character's speaking in faux-philosophical platitudes, scene chewing one-liners, and hammy clichés (e.g. "I know you want to know where I hang my cape.").  Secondly, The structure of each scene is clearly to get to the next. The pace of the film is so brisk that it gives the audience little chance to breathe.  This makes the film lack a focus, which is compounded by Snyder's (lack of) direction.
          I hate Zack Snyder as a director. I think he makes poor films. His effort on 'Man of Steel' solidifies that belief for me.  As many other reviewers and commentators have said, Snyder is "all flash and no substance".  But in 'Man of Steel' that "flash" has the intensity of a sparkler.  He does not know where to put the camera and when he does place it somewhere, it is shaky. In fact most of the final product is poorly edited that it lacks any emotion at all.
         A perfect example of just how bad Snyder is as a director, is the death of General Zod.  First off, it was NOT in the original script.  Snyder added it after the eventual (and contentious) acquiescence of Writer David Goyer and Producer Christopher Nolan. Snyder used this as the source of Superman's code against killing. A unnecessary change if Jonathan Kent was given a more positive role in the development of Clark's morality. Furthermore, a Superman who kills ( regardless of who it is) does NOT bring hope to the people he protects. Also, the way the scene was constructed presents Superman and the audience with several ways Zod could be stopped without being killed. Ultimately it comes down to the killing of Zod being an example of Snyder's sloppy filmmaking. Supporters of Snyder's decision have been saying "If you only subdue Zod, then what?" to which I say A) Look at the source material and B) That is not the point. Killing Zod has more to do with Superman than it does Zod as a threat. Killing is easy, choosing life is more difficult, and it's always the choice Superman makes, at least MY Superman. 
        All in all, this film is awful, I can't believe I paid to go see it ( especially $12). I do not recommend it to anyone, fan or general public.  I hope this is the last Zack Snyder film I ever see, even more so the last film he makes. However, given 'Man of Steel's somewhat surprising box office success I don't think that is likely.  Please Stay Away.

Look for Part 2 coming soon.

Welcome.

Greetings all,

I created this blog as a space to discuss the things that I love: Sociology, Martial Arts, Superheroes, Books and Cinema.  This blog will focus on the social analysis of popular culture, Martial Arts and anything that I feel is "Geek" worthy.  Essentially, the posts that are to follow are going to be rants and/or raves about society, culture, social theory, martial arts, movies, and virtually anything else that comes into my head.

Enjoy :)