Untitled

Similarities

When it comes to commonalities between the works that have been selected – Sugmund Freud’s “The Uncanny”1, Judith Butler’s “Gender Is Burning: Questions Of Appropriation And Subversion”2, Jack Halberstram’s “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches of Film”3, and Stuart Hall’s “What is this ‘black’ in black popular culture?”4 – there are many. Let’s start with the first: the complexity in which each theorist views their subject. In each of these texts, the theorists consider an aspect of human identity that is often reduced to afterthought or stereotype: Freud with the idea of one’s self, Butler with gender, Halberstram with sexuality, and Hall with Blackness. Every one of these theorists approaches their subject with an interest in digging deeper than is often dug. In fact, when reading each of these texts you will find in all of them at least one instance of a theorist saying, and I heavily paraphrase, that “this subject is not analyzed thoroughly enough, and I’m here to do so.” In this exploration, each theorist finds that their chosen subject operates with a certain malleability, particularly Butler, Halberstram, and Hall. For Butler this is quite obvious; the focus of their piece is the fluidity of gender. “To claim that all gender is like drag, or is drag, is to suggest that 'imitation' is at the heart of the heterosexual project and its gender binarisms, that drag is not a secondary imitation that presupposes a prior and original gender, but that hegemonic heterosexuality is itself a constant and repeated effort to imitate its own idealizations”5. This sentence gets at the heart of what Butler is considering. They break down gender in a very effective manner, claiming that gender is a performance, and therefore, as stated earlier, is malleable. For Halberstram, they analyze the malleability of sexuality through the lens of “positive images”6. In their piece, they take a look at how stereotype permeates the widely spread depictions of butches. In reference to positive images, they say that “The opposite of the stereotype has long been thought of as ‘the positive image,’ and yet it may well be that positive images also deal in stereotypes and with far more disastrous effects”7. What Halberstram is saying is that positive images often just reflect what a society deems the norm, thus not allowing for accurate representation. By dismantling the idea of positiver images, Halberstram makes space for the exploration of the spectrum of sexuality experiences that may exist. Hall, as with Butler, is a bit more self-explanatory. “What we are talking about is the struggle over cultural hegemony, which is these days waged as much in popular culture as anywhere else”8. Hall lays his idea for how ideas are circulated. He goes on to say that because ideas are created and molded in popular culture, in Black popular culture, the ideas of blackness are able to be created and molded. While Frued’s theory doesn’t operate in the same way, he is playing with some amount of malleability. In the concept of “the self” itself, there exists malleability, “the self” being one of the key tenants of “the uncanny”.

Differences

The texts I have chosen, which all have key similarities, also possess several key differences. First, and perhaps most obviously, Freud’s “The Uncanny” deals with the subject of psychoanalysis, which is a very internal concept. The other three, Butler, Halberstram, and Hall, all deal with external subjects, such as gender, sexuality, and race; things we may think of as societal constructs rather than mental truths. Saying that there is no reality to the concepts of gender, sexuality, and race is incorrect, for they do exist, but only within the context of the society we live in. With psychoanalysis, and the uncanny, this subject exists regardless of the society one is brought up in. All this said, the ways and lenses through which these theorists analyze their given subjects are quite different across the board. As stated previously, Freud analyzes the concept of the uncanny through the lens of psychoanalysis, attempting to delve deep into the psyche of humanity. Butler’s text uses the lens of feminist theory in order to thoroughly interrogate the idea of gender performativity. They invoke the names of several feminist theorists when they say things like “In her provocative review of Paris Is Burning, bell hooks criticized some productions of gay male drag as misogynist, and here she allied herself in part with feminist theorists such as Marilyn Frye and Janice Raymond”9. These invocations and frequent references back to the subject of feminism show a clear lens of feminism in the text. Butler also uses film analysis, looking at the film Paris is Burning, and connecting the themes and characters found in that film to their underlying theory. As for Halberstram, they too use film theory. The main difference between Halberstram and Butler’s texts, besides the subjects themselves, is that Halberstram opts for a wider lens, looking at many examples of films that support their underlying argument. In just two sentences, they are able to mention four films that in some way support their argument, while Butler only uses one: “In the same year that GLAAD was protesting gay stereotyping in The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and Basic Instinct (1992), gay filmmaker Tom Kalin produced Swoon (1992), a film about the gay child killers Leopold and Loeb. Poison (1991), by Todd Haynes, and The Living End (1992), by Gregg Araki, also offered up less than idealized images of gay men”10. While Stuart Hall’s text is grounded in cultural studies, much like Butler and Halberstram, he uses the lens of critical race theory to present his argument that Black popular culture is a place for conversations to be had about Blackness outside of a wider popular culture context that is dominated by European, settler-colonialist ideology. There is something to be said about the vast difference in subjects that have been presented by these theorists. Of course, it makes sense given the personal connections each of these theorists have to the subject. The subjects these theorists chose contrast each other just as well as they connect, providing a vast tapestry of critical theory that can be studied through many further lenses.

Watchmen

In 2019, HBO released their adaptation of the Alan Moore-written Watchmen11, a seminal text in the world of graphic novels. This was the second adaptation of Watchmen, the first being Zack Snyder’s Watchmen (2009)12. For simplicity’s sake, I will refer to Snyder’s adaptation as Watchmen (2009), Moore’s as Watchmen (1987), and the Damon Lindelof created and showrun adaptation as simply Watchmen13. Watchmen doesn’t follow the story of Watchmen (1987) in the way that Watchmen (2009) does, though Snyder’s adaptation makes some critical changes. Instead, Lindelof and his incredibly talented writing team opted to present a continuation and expansion of the story of Watchmen (1987), incorporating the modern political environment with the political environment depicted in Moore’s story, something that was critical to the graphic novel, as well as the characters Moore created. This combination led to a rich and diverse series, with each episode presenting at least one aspect to be heavily analyzed, if not several. And so we shall. For our purposes, we will be looking at scenes from Episodes 6 and 8. The scene in episode 6 that we will be looking at goes from 27:00 - 32:45, and shows Will Reeves, who is the man under the mask of Hooded Justice, infiltrating a white supremacist meeting at a grocery store in queens, fighting members of the Ku Klux Klan, and jumping out of a window, where he freezes in mid-air. We then see Laurie Blake approach the frozen Will, who has become Angela, the series protagonist. Angela is living Will’s memories. Then, Angela’s husband Cal approaches her, and the scene ends with him speaking to her. For episode 8, we will be taking a look at a scene that shows Angela’s husband becoming Dr. Manhattan once again, which goes from 42:23 - 45:38. Dr. Manhattan goes around the house, performing various tasks, before going outside, standing on the pool, and teleporting their children away.

Let’s start our analysis with the concept that perhaps has the least to do with either episode: gender performativity. In episode six, when Will becomes Angela, it resembles some ideas of how Butler presents the concept of gender performativity. This episode already deals with the idea of putting on a mask to hide a part of one’s identity, which we’ll get back to, and it does this in another fashion in this scene. In addition, this is not the first time Angela has transformed into Will, and vice versa. Earlier in the episode, there is a scene where Angela first falls into the memories of Will, and we see Angela standing in line to get her police badge, the camera pans away, and when we return, Angela has been replaced by a young man. The camera moves away once again, and we return to Angela. This moment at the store is not the first time this has happened, indicating that the director Stephen Williams and writers Damon Lindelof and Cord Jefferson intended for the fluidity of gender to be a present theme. Angela and Will, while showing the fluidity of gender, are themselves a refusal of the idea of “positive images” as presented by Halberstram. As was stated earlier, “The opposite of the stereotype has long been thought of as ‘the positive image,’ and yet it may well be that positive images also deal in stereotypes and with far more disastrous effects”7. This means that positive images tend to reflect what a society that values heteronormative, patriarchal, and Euro-centric ideals deems respectable, thus engaging more deeply in stereotypes than if the “positive image” was not reflected. Angela is a character that fights hard against this idea. While we are only directly analyzing these scenes, it is important to remember that these characters have had an arc to this point, and that is relevant to these conversations. Angela is an intersectional character, one in whom we can see two sides of the coin of fighting against “positive images”. She is a Black woman who defies gender norms. Her husband, Cal, often performs the duties of the stay-at-home parent, while Angela is out at work on the police force. Speaking of the police, Angela is a Black woman on a police force dominated by white men. The show makes the fight against “positive images” in this regard very easy, showing us a white-supremacist conspiracy settled in the police department, with Angela being one of the few to fight against it. She doesn’t show complacency, as one might. Will is another intersectional character. His being attracted to Captain Metropolis is an important plot point, but it doesn’t exactly show up in this scene from episode 6. He, similarly to Angela, is a Black person in a police force dominated by white supremacists. He too fights against the ideas of “positive images” by not showing complacency to the white supremacy he faces, which leads him to donning the mask we see in this scene from episode 6, and infiltrating the white supremacists in the grocery store. In addition to all this, Angela and Cal adopted their children, which is an important plot point in other episodes. There is conflict about this topic, and Angela is not simply portrayed as benevolent because she adopted. Staying with this scene, this is the first appearance of Dr. Manhattan in the modern time period of the show, and in this scene we see him perfectly exemplify the uncanny. The general concept of the uncanny revolves around the idea of the familiar becoming strange. Dr. Manhattan reflects this on several levels. First, while he resembles a human, he possesses godlike abilities and perceives time in a fashion unfamiliar to normal humans. On another level, we see him in Cal’s body for the first time, which gives him another level of uncanny-ness. We have become familiar with Cal and his homely ways, and we are thrust into a reality where Cal is no longer the man he was, and yet he remains in Cal’s body. 

Going back to Will, when he dons the mask, he also wears light colored makeup around his eyes, in order to make himself appear white to those who perceive him. As was previously mentioned, Hall considers Black popular culture to be a place where conversations about Blackness and what it means to be Black are had. Watchmen is a perfect example of a piece of media operating in this field. First, it presents characters that reflect different parts of the spectrum of Black identity, showing power, pain, sadness, appropriation, and legacy in all of the show’s Black characters. Also, being on HBO and showrun by Damon Lindelof, a successful man in the industry, these portrayals are allowed to be presented not only as Black popular culture, but wider popular culture itself.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the theorists chosen for this analysis clearly share ideas and philosophies, though perhaps analyzing different subjects in different ways. This method of conversation allows us to apply so much of what is presented to a piece of popular culture like Watchmen. The series is a deep consideration of the superhero genre, as well as the history of America, and with such a wide range of themes and topics, it feels only right to analyze with as wide a net as possible, while also dialing in on the specifics.

Works Cited

1Freud, Sigmund. “The ‘Uncanny.’” Essay. In Collected Papers IV, Vol. IV. London, United Kingdom: Hogarth Press, 1948. 

2Butler, Judith. “Gender Is Burning: Questions Of Appropriation And Subversion.” Essay. In Feminist Film Theory: A Reader. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1999. 

3Halbestram, Jack. “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film.” Essay. In Female Masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998. 

4Hall, Stuart. “What Is This ‘Black’ in Black Popular Culture?” Essay. In Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 1996. 

5Butler. “Gender Is Burning: Questions Of Appropriation And Subversion”. Feminist Film Theory: A Reader, 338

6Halberstram. “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film”. Female Masculinity. 179

7Halberstram. “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film”. Female Masculinity. 184

8Hall. “What Is This ‘Black’ in Black Popular Culture?”. Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. 471

9Butler. “Gender Is Burning: Questions Of Appropriation And Subversion”. Feminist Film Theory: A Reader, 339

10Halberstram. “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film”. Female Masculinity. 185

11Moore, Alan, and Dave Gibbons. Watchmen. Burbank, CA: DC Comics, 1987. 

12Watchmen. United States: Warner Bros. Pictures, 2009. 

Orientalism

Orientalism is, simply put, the idea of seeing the Asian world through a European lens or point of view. It involves the commodification and simplification of Asian culture, and often leads to racist depictions of Asian people or culture in media. It’s closely related to Eurocentrism. It was developed by Edward Said in his book of the same name1.

Disney films are no stranger to racist depictions of the cultures of people of color. One obvious example is Song of the South, which, even when it was first released, was recognized for its racist depictions of Black people. But some Disney films, especially their animated affairs, can slip under the radar of many people’s prejudice detectors. One such film that does this is Lady and the Tramp. In this film, there is a scene where two siamese cats sing a song. This song shows the cats performing with vaguely Asian accents. The cats are also drawn in the way an east Asian person may be stereotypically drawn, with small slanted eyes and buck-teeth. Their singing is also accompanied by the sounds of gongs, bells, and other instruments that are stereotypically associated with east Asian culture. A key concept of Orientalism is the idea of a European fixation with Asian culture. According to Said, “The Orient is not only adjacent to Europe; it is also the place of Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and one of its deepest and most recurring images of the other”2. This effect can be seen near the beginning of the song, when the siamese cats walk by Lady, which prompts a look of satisfaction and interest from her. Another key tenet of Orientalism is that “In addition, the Orient has helped to define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience”2. Meaning that the Orient is seen as Europe’s opposite. This can be seen in the latter part of the song, when the siamese cats begin to wreak havoc on the house they are in, while Lady, an American dog, saves the house in their wake, firmly establishing the siamese cats as her opposite, much like the Orient to the Occident.

Popular Culture

Popular culture is a concept very familiar to anyone who spends their time amongst visual media. According to Stuart Hall in his essay “What is this ‘black’ in black popular culture?”3, he states that popular culture is “mass-cultural, image-mediated, technological”4 . He goes on to say that black popular culture is a space where questions of blackness are able to be discussed, so it can be said that popular culture is a space where many topics are discussed. This is how the culture is created.

Peter Pan is a benchmark in American popular culture. There have been countless spin-offs, remakes, and re-imaginings of the story of Peter Pan, Wendy, and her siblings. As with lady of the tramp, while much of this story is how we look upon it - classic, family fun - there is one part that is often overlooked when considering the film Peter Pan. The scene in question is when the kids encounter a group of Native Americans, who, in the film, impart their wisdom and culture upon the children. This depiction of Native Americans is incredibly racist. Every man is portrayed with deep red skin, as are the older women, while younger women are portrayed with brown skin, and have more realistic facial and bodily dimensions. This in of itself is a great place to start with popular culture. It’s important to note the intersectional prejudice at work here: Native American men and older women are unnatural people, while young Native American women are beautiful, and are meant to be seen performing and hit on. The film grossed $87.4 million upon its release, a large sum for 1953, and was seen by many. The fact that this song existed in American popular culture is representative of how Native Americans were treated, and are to this day. In addition, it’s interesting that we, as a culture, have decided to ignore this terrible depiction of a culture, and others like it. Peter Pan is still fondly remembered as a family classic, and, if we look at the film through Hall’s framework, which says that popular culture allows for discussion and culture creation, this means that a culture of complicity and ignorance has been created.

Stereotype

As defined by Oxford English Dictionary, stereotype is a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. Many famous examples of stereotypes include Asian people being of higher intelligence or of Black people being criminals. All the theorists we focused upon interact with stereotype in some way: Hall with how stereotype is created and deconstructed in popular culture, Said with his idea of Orientalism, of which stereotype plays a huge role, and Shohat and Stam in how stereotypes affect the way people are represented on screen5.

The Aristocats has the honor of being one of the only films I will be analyzing that deals with multiple stereotypes. First, stepping on the heels of what they had made fifteen years prior, Disney decided to include another siamese cat character in one of their films. This cat is viewed by the characters in the film in a much kinder light than those in Lady and the Tramp, which means it only occupies that first tenant of Orientalism, which says that the Orient is a European fascination (it should be noted that The Aristocats takes place in France). This siamese cat is shown playing the piano with chopsticks, as a young Aristocat looks on in admiration. The rest of the band is made of of cats portrayed as what can only be described as African American stereotypes. These cats perform jazz music, while wearing clothes reminiscent of Jazz performers in the 1920s, as well as one character wearing accessories straight from the soul movement of the 1960s. The instruments they play are telling as well: trumpet and upright bass the most so. We also see stereotypes (perhaps not stereotype but whatever it is it enhances the stereotype of the others) of European culture. The white Aristocat plays the harp with a French accent, calmly and gently, whereas the other players perform with fervor. The last part of this song sees the tempo pick back up, initiated by the trumpet player, and as the cats (also perhaps a stereotypical choice of animal) perform atop it, it comes crashing through the house, a signal of stereotypes that permeate all non-dominant cultures: they are dangerous, and destruction will come in their wake.

Cultural Hegemony

Cultural hegemony is a concept that sounds quite complicated, but it can be easily summarized as this: cultural hegemony is the dominant culture in a society, which then defines the culture that the rest of society ascribes to. Simply put, it is the culture as defined by those in power.

“An ape like me can learn to be human too.” This is the final line of a chorus sung by an ape in the film The Jungle Book. This analysis works best if we view Mowgli, the human character in this story, as an audience surrogate. Films in the 1960s, when this film was released, were presented for White people. So it can be said that Mowgli is meant to represent the eyes and voice of White people. With that said, let’s take a look at the song. The song begins with jazzy instrumentals, and someone begins to scat over them. We see that the scatting person is an ape. Now let’s pause here, because this is already setting off some big red lights. It seems too on the nose to have your ape character performing a jazz piece, no? The lyrics of the song express the ape’s lament for not being able to walk around the world like Mowgli does. As I said in the beginning, the final line of the chorus goes “An ape like me can learn to be human too.” This, as I see it, is where this idea of cultural hegemony comes into play. As I said earlier, films were made for white people in these days. But not only were films made for them, they were made by them. Using our knowledge of stereotypes, we can see that the ape is meant to represent Black Americans, and their need to become more like white people in order to be presentable in public. This incredibly popular film, has been seen by millions, is enforcing this idea of cultural hegemony, positioning white people at the top of society, while Black people lay below them. 

Realism

Realism is a concept heavily focused upon in the work of Shohat and Stam. Simply put, realism is an artistic attempt to portray individuals as realistically as possible. Shohat and Stam argue that realism is not a worthwhile endeavor, as realism will always be tinged with viewpoints that cannot be separated from the cultural contexts they exist within.

In a children’s film with talking animals, you would think that there wouldn’t need to be an attempt at realism made, for realism loses all form when confronted with something so unrealistic as talking animals and, in the case of Dumbo, flying elephants. As will all the songs seen previously, “When I See an Elephant Fly” deals heavily with stereotypes. The mouse character, which is the least of the stereotypical characters, has a thick New York Italian accent. The birds who sing the song are portrayed as Disney’s favorite punching bag: Black people. They wear clothes reminiscent of those that would have been worn during the  reconstruction-era. If this isn’t enough, the birds are also performed by Black singers, as well as being portrayed as crows, a black bird. This is the antithesis of realism. Or rather, it speaks to the pitfalls of realism that Shohat and Stam express. Let’s just say, for a moment, that this song really was an attempt at an accurate portrayal of African Americans. According to Shohat and Stam, “The issue, then, is less one of fidelity to a preexisting truth or reality than one of a specific orchestration of ideological discourses and communitarian perspectives”6. Meaning that an attempt at realism is tarnished by the unrealistic opinions of mass-culture when it comes to groups of color. We can see that plainly here in Dumbo. This portrayal of Black Americans is not realistic to their true experience, even if they are portrayed as birds.

Works Cited

1Said, Edward. “Introduction.” Essay. In Orientalism. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 1978.

2Said. “Introduction”. Orientalism, 9-10

3Hall, Stuart. “What Is This ‘Black’ in Black Popular Culture?” Essay. In Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 1996. 

4Hall. “What Is This ‘Black’ in Black Popular Culture?”. Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, 469

5Shohat, Ella, and Robert Stam. “Stereotype, Realism, and the Struggle Over Representation.” Essay. In Unthinking Eurocentrism. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 1994. 

While the song “Can’t Hold Us Down” by Christina Aguilera1 is mostly about female empowerment and resisting gender stereotypes, the music video conveys even more, with stark imagery of a community that is made up primarily of people of color. The intersectionality that the video possesses is key to understanding its message. In Stuart Hall’s essay “What is this ‘black’ in black popular culture?2,” he introduces his idea that the “Black” in Black popular culture is not a set idea, rather it is a fluid conversation of Blackness. In his words, “What we are talking about is the struggle over cultural hegemony, which is these days waged as much in popular culture as anywhere else”3. While, as I stated earlier, on the surface this video is about what it means to be a woman, its underlying themes are of race and representation, which is the real battle being fought. This intersectionality is still key to Hall’s philosophy. As he says, “We are always in negotiation, not with a single set of oppositions that place us always in the same relation to others, but with a series of different positionalities”4. Aguilera’s exploration of themes of sexuality while using the backdrop of a primarily people-of-color community is this video’s way of continuing the conversation about what it means to be “Black”, or in the video’s case, simply “other”. “The Other” is a concept Edouard Edward Said introduces in his seminal book Orientalism5. In the context of the Orient, better known as Asia, he states that “​​The Orient is not only adjacent to Europe; it is also the place of Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies, the source of its civilizations and languages, its cultural contestant, and one of its deepest and most recurring images of the other”6. He goes on to say that Europe sees Asia as “its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience”7, yet it is “an integral of European material civilization and culture”7. While Aguilera’s video does not explicitly speak about Orientalism, some key themes are very present. In Orientalism, Said refers to the way Asia is perceived as “‘a place of romance, exotic beings, haunting memories and landscapes, remarkable experiences”6. Essentially, Orientalism places emphasis on the mystification of Asian culture, through the power of European colonialism. The environment Aguilera’s video is set in is extremely colorful, and, as previously mentioned, mostly populated with people of color. Most of the very few white people in this video appear in the beginning, shown throwing milk into the street below. This can be seen as a representation of Orientalist themes. The white people are placed above the people of color who populate the streets below, and throw milk onto them, which can represent the Orientalist turn of imposing Euro-centricity on the culture of those colonized and disenfranchised.

Of course, the question must be asked, is this music video an authentic representation of the culture and community that it’s presenting to us? In their book Unthinking Eurocentrism8, Ella Shohat and Robert Stam consider the way that race and representation exist in the media. Under the section “Writing Hollywood And Race” in the chapter “Stereotype, Realism And The Struggle Over Representation,” they argue that there is an important distinction between media image and social reality. They use the documentary Color Adjustment to help their argument, stating that “Color Adjustment underlines this contrast between media image and social reality by suggestively juxtaposing sitcom episodes with documentary street footage”9. I’d like to pose the thought that perhaps Aguilera’s video would fall under the category of sitcom in this comparison, at least when it comes to the ideas of race and representation. Aguilera, who is of Ecuadorian, German, Irish, Welsh, and Dutch descent, did not grow up in people of color dominated areas of New York. She lived in Wexford, PA for most of her adolescence, a town in a majority-white county. This music video may feel inauthentic to many because it may not be authentic to Aguilera’s experiences. Which brings me to Kendrick Lamar

Kendrick Lamar grew up in Compton, CA, at a time when the city’s high crime rates were national news, due to the prominence of gangster rap groups like NWA. The music video for his song “i”10 showcases this environment prominently. From the cars to the police uniforms, the video harkens back to a time when Kendrick was growing up in South Central Los Angeles. In my estimation, Kendrick Lamar’s video represents more of the “documentary footage” that Shohat and Stam mentioned in their comparison with media image and social reality. Aguilera’s video can be felt as inauthentic because it feels like a sitcom, not in a comedic way but in a matter of faux reality. Kendrick’s video feels like a documentary because of its groundedness in his childhood and the experiences of his city. It should be noted that Aguilera appears to darken her skin in her video. As previously stated, Hall believes that popular culture is a place where the concept of “Black” is able to be conversed about. Kendrick, in his music video for “i”, is able to redefine “Blackness” on his own terms. He presents different depictions of Black characters in every moment. One moment that shows great contrast of character and incredible conversation in his own mind on the topic of “Blackness” comes at the 2:20 mark in the video for “i”11.

Kendrick walks past a house, on the front porch of which a man yells at a woman; presumably they are in a relationship. In this very same moment, two Black children, one boy and one girl, run by, playing together, juxtaposing the depiction of adult negativity behind them. There are many things that can be interpreted from this shot, which perhaps even greater lends itself to the argument that it is more “documentary footage”. The perceived authenticity of Kendrick Lamar’s “i” video thus lends itself to a challenge of Orientalist ideals. While the video does show White police officers arresting a Black man at 1:4312, seemingly exerting that idea of power over “the other” that Orientalism is built so much upon, it is immediately followed by Kendrick and his crew of dancers/partygoers weaving through the group of cops with numbers that far outweigh what the cops possess, thus re-establishing power over themselves.

Works Cited

1Aguilera, Christina. “Christina Aguilera - Can’t Hold Us Down (Official HD Video).” YouTube, November 18, 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg8QgUIKXHw&t=196s.

2Hall, Stuart. “What Is This ‘Black’ in Black Popular Culture?” Essay. In Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 1996. 

3Hall. “What Is This ‘Black’ in Black Popular Culture?”, 471

4Hall. “What Is This ‘Black’ in Black Popular Culture?”, 476

5Said, Edward. “Introduction.” Essay. In Orientalism. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 1978. 

6Said. Orientalism, 9

7Said. Orientalism, 10

8Shohat, Ella, and Robert Stam. “Stereotype, Realism And The Struggle Over Representation.” Essay. In Unthinking Eurocentrism. New York, NY: Routledge, 1994. 

9Shohat and Stam. “Stereotype, Realism And The Struggle Over Representation”, 198

10Lamar, Kendrick. “Kendrick Lamar - i (Official Video).” YouTube, November 4, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aShfolR6w8. 

11Lamar. “i”, 2:20

12Lamar. “i”, 1:43

Discussion Questions

Can the darkening of one’s skin make the work feel more authentic, and when might this backfire?

Does either video engage in stereotype, and if so, does it detract from the video or benefit it?

Male Gaze

The male gaze is a term that appears in the texts of many theorists that consider the subjects of gender and sexuality. It is a key concept to understanding how the media we consume interacts with these ideas. The concept of the “male gaze” was first introduced by Laura Mulvey in her essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”1. The main idea of the “male gaze” is that the media we consume depicts the world, and women, from the perspective of men. This leads to women being objectified as objects of male pleasure. 

Neil Gaiman’s graphic novel Sandman doesn’t engage in the “male gaze” in the way it has historically been engaged with. This is surprising especially when we consider the fact that Gaiman is a straight, cis, white man, a usual description of someone perpetuating the “male gaze”. Gaiman, for whatever reason, decides to push against the male gaze. He does so in a few ways. “A Game of You”2, the section of Sandman that will be analyzed here, is populated by a diverse cast of characters. Perhaps because this graphic novel delves into the world of fantasy, Gaiman finds it easy to subvert expectations and create a more radical narrative. This is not uncommon. In Jack Halberstam’s “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film”3, they present the idea of a “fantasy butch”, stating that “The fantasy butch, unlike the prison butch, actively destroys femininity within her own body and remakes it as a stunning and defiant female masculinity”4. However, this is not the way that the central character of “A Game of You”, Barbie, is portrayed. Barbie is shown as a stereotypically feminine character, especially at the beginning of the story. In many stories, she would just be a side character, relegated to the view of a man. But Gaiman allows Barbie to continue her journey, and through this journey she finds self-empowerment and discovery. This is the way that Gaiman challenges the “male gaze”.

Positive Images

In Jack Halberstram’s “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film”3, they present the idea of “positive images” as they pertain to stories of queer individuals. To Halberstram, positive images come from a place of wanting to de-stigmatize and humanize people who may be underrepresented in society. “Positive images” usually refer to portrayals that are meant to go against stereotypes by portraying marginalized people in a favorable or empowering manner. Halberstram also says that “positive images also deal in stereotypes and with far more disastrous effects”5, meaning that “positive images” can actually have the opposite effect of what they intend, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and societal standards.

Again we see that Gaiman fights against the pitfalls of “positive images”, deciding not to engage in stereotypes but rather to deliver nuanced depictions of female and queer characters. As was already mentioned, Barbie is a good example of this. She is a three-dimensional character that is portrayed honestly. But where Gaiman fights further against stereotypes is with the character of Wanda. Wanda is, for a lack of better words, a trans woman not just for the sake of being a trans woman. If Wanda were a positive image, she would be portrayed and someone who is completely comfortable with her gender identity and faces little meaningful hardship. According to Halberstram, “The opposite of the stereotype has long been thought of as "the positive image," and yet it may well be that positive images also deal in stereotypes and with far more disastrous effects”5. She is able to avoid being pushed into a “positive image” by not being idealized or sanitized in any way. Her arc as a character contains great struggle, even after her death, as shown with her family in the final chapter of the story6.

Gender Performativity

In her essay “Gender Is Burning: Questions Of Appropriation And Subversion”7, Judith Butler introduces the concept of gender performativity. The key points of gender performativity are as follows: gender is not something one is, rather it is something one does, and this doing, or performance, is dictated by societal norms and expectations. 

As with the previous word, Wanda is the best character to look at when it comes to gender performativity, mostly because of her experience being both genders. As was previously stated, Butler believes that gender is a repeated performance of something that the society we exist in considers the standard or the norm. Wanda is someone who actively fights against this standard, deciding to rather perform the opposite of what society expects and deems appropriate. She does this despite deep pressure from society to conform to its standard, seen clearly with her funeral at the end of the story, where she is dead-named on her gravestone and by her family. It’s interesting to compare Wanda’s fate to that of Venus Xtravaganza, a character in the film Paris is Burning, which Butler is using as a framework for her essay. Butler states of Venus that “She 'passes' as a light-skinned woman, but is-by virtue of a certain failure to pass completely-clearly vulnerable to homophobic violence; ultimately, her life is taken presumably by a client who, upon the discovery of what she calls her 'little secret,' mutilates her for having seduced him. On the other hand, Willi Ninja can pass as straight; his voguing becomes foregrounded in het video productions with Madonna et al., and he achieves post-legendary status on an international scale. There is passing and then there is passing, and it is-as we used to say-'no accident' that Willi Ninja ascends and Venus Xtravaganza dies”8. In a way, we can see a parallel drawn from Venus to Wanda and from Willi to Barbie. The latter two are able to live, and they both pass for or identify as straight, whereas the former two are not able to do so.

Queer Gaze

In their essay “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film”3, Jack Halberstram introduces to their audience the concept fo the queer gaze. In short, the queer gaze is a lens by which to view the world, and the media we consume in particular, which centers the identities and experiences of queer people.

Once again, we return to Wanda, a character that exemplifies what a focal point for the queer gaze should be. In this story, the magical elements often fall under binary terms of gender, as seen in Wanda’s conversation with George9. George is not exactly taking a stance himself. Rather, he conveys the message and ideals of the gods: that it doesn’t matter how you feel, you are what you’re born as. Wanda takes issue with this, stating that she knows what she is. In the words of Halberstram “‘I'm permanently troubled by identity categories, consider them to be invariable stumbling-blocks, and understand them, even promote them, as sites of necessary trouble.’ Identity, it seems, as a representational strategy produces both power and danger; it provides both an obstacle to identification and a site ‘of necessary trouble’”10. This is Wanda’s situation at this moment. For her, identity produces an internal power, and an external danger. In the eyes of the gods, the way she identifies herself provides an obstacle to identification. But for Wanda, her chosen (perhaps not chosen but rather felt) identity is unquestionable. 

Subversion

Subversion, specifically subversion of expectations is not a concept that is unique to theories of gender and sexuality. However, subversion is a key concept when put under the lens of the works of theorists who operate in that space. Butler speaks about how gender performance can lead to a subversion of one’s identity and societal standards. Halberstram speaks about how the queer gaze subverts stereotypical depictions and looks deeper.

 One character in particular comes to mind when speaking about subversion of expectations. Hazel, a lesbian character who is in a relationship with Foxglove. In the beginning of “A Game of You”, Hazel comes to Barbie to ask for advice11. It’s important to note that we have met Hazel once before, and it was clear that she was in a relationship with Foxglove. Hazel reveals to Barbie that once, when Foxglove was away, Hazel had sex with a man, and now believes herself to be pregnant. This already is a subversion of our expectations. We have clearly seen that Hazel is a lesbian. She embodies the stereotypical butch lesbian look that one might envision for that character. But Gaiman opts to steer away from that stereotype, at least in her actions. The next subversion comes in Barbie’s reaction. She doesn’t react with judgment, at least not any that would seem outwardly negative. Rather, she decides to show Hazel compassion. With every “dumb” question Hazel throws her way, Barbie responds without criticism, simply providing a response. This way of writing the scene exemplifies the manner in which Gaiman went about writing this story. He attempted not to reinforce societal standards, but to subvert them, thus advancing how we think.

Works Cited

1Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Essay. In Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, Seventhed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2009. 

2Gaiman, Neil. “A Game of You.” Essay. In The Sandman. Burbank, CA: DC Comics, 1993. https://www.hoopladigital.com/comic/the-sandman-book-two-neil-gaiman/15013535. 

3Halbestram, Jack. “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film.” Essay. In Female Masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998. 

4Halberstram, “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film.” 203.

5Halberstram, “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film.” 184.

6Gaiman, “A Game of You.” 437-453.

7Butler, Judith. “Gender Is Burning: Questions Of Appropriation And Subversion.” Essay. In Feminist Film Theory: A Reader. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1999. 

8Butler, “Gender Is Burning: Questions Of Appropriation And Subversion.” 342.

9Gaiman, “A Game of You.” 383-384.

10Halberstram, “Looking Butch: A Rough Guide to Butches on Film.” 177.

Mirror Stage

The Mirror Stage is a critical part of Jaques Lacan’s piece “The Mirror Stage As Formative Of The Function Of The I As Revealed In Psychoanalytic Experience”. The phrase “mirror stage” refers to a critical part of a child’s development, when “The child, at an age when he is for a time, however short, outdone by the chimpanzee in instrumental intelligence, can nevertheless already recognize as such his own image in a mirror.” (Lacan, 75). This phase of a child’s development introduces the child to the concepts of  “other” and “I”, allowing the child to differentiate themself from other beings.

In the episode “Squeeze” from season one of The X-Files, our main characters, Dana and Fox, are asked to investigate a possible string of killings in the Baltimore area. These killings, as we come to learn, are being committed by a genetically mutated human named Tooms. There is a mystery as to how Tooms is able to kill these people in the ways he does, but there is no mystery as to how he kills. He crawls through air vents and windows, really any small space, and using his genetic mutation, is able to squeeze his body through these spaces (22:00). But how does this relate to the mirror stage? Think back to when I told you that the mirror stage introduces a child to the concepts of the “other” and the “I”. In Lacan’s words, “by these two aspects of its appearance, symbolizes the mental permanence of the I, at the same time as it prefigures its alienating destination…”(Lacan, 76). Tooms acts as a visual representation of this phenomenon. On the one hand: human. On the other: something ungodly monstrous. This is what the child experiences in the mirror stage. When a child sees themself in the mirror, they are at once shown just that, themself. They see themself for what they are. But they also see another being. A separate thing, perhaps an uncanny existence of “the other”. Tooms represents this dichotomy.

Uncanny

The Uncanny is a concept presented by Sigmund Freud in his essay, entitled “The Uncanny”. The uncanny will occur with a sense of intellectual uncertainty, repressed childhood memories and desires, and primitive beliefs held in our minds. However, it should be noted that, In Freud’s words “The most remarkable coincidences of desire and fulfilment, the most mysterious recurrence of similar experiences in a particular place or on a particular date, the most deceptive sights and suspicious noises—none of these things will take him in or raise that kind of fear which can be described as ‘a fear of something uncanny’.” (Freud, 402) The uncanny requires specific parameters, and something that is merely creepy is not uncanny.

The obvious link between “The Uncanny” and “Squeeze” comes in the form of, again, Tooms. Tooms, in his ability to shift and contort his body, represents the concept of a doppelgänger, or a double, very well. Freud speaks about “the connections the ‘ double’ has with reflections in mirrors, with shadows, guardian spirits, with the belief in the soul and the fear of death…” (Freud, 387). Doubles show us a dark glimpse at ourselves, similar to how the mirror offers a child a dark glimpse at themself. Tooms is a double for all humans. His human figure shows us his familiarity. And yet, his bile, contorting body, and yellow eyes all present him as an uncanny representation of us. The interrogation scene (15:16) is a great representation of this. Tooms in the interrogation room is cold, unfeeling, and blank, while his counterparts in the other room show their emotion clearly. And this unnatural feeling only grows as the episode continues. Similarly, Tooms represents a return of the repressed. Tooms is someone who, due to his genetic mutation, is able to hibernate for 30 years, and then reveal himself, eat five livers, and go back to hibernation. Each one of his reappearances is documented well in the episode, and is a wonderful representation of the uncanny. Tooms method of survival is quite invasive, both to the household and the person. Preying on long-held beliefs of security in the home, this episode presents its audience with a clear view of the uncanny.

Heimlich

In Freud’s “The Uncanny”, he writes about a phenomenon called the uncanny. To do so, he brings in several outside terms and theories, two of which being heimlich and unheimlich. Heimlich, “meaning ‘familiar’ ; ‘native’, ‘belonging to the home’…” (Freud, 370). Essential and we are tempted to conclude that what is ‘ uncanny ’ is frightening precisely because it is not known and familiar. The existence of heimlich allows the uncanny to exist, for in order for something to be uncanny, there must be something familiar about it. 

In order to recognize what is heimlich about “Squeeze”, and how it relates to the uncanny, let’s take a look at the opening scene of the episode (00.00). It begins with a man walking out of a hotel, with typical 1990s procedural synth music playing in the background. He walks down the street, and up to this point, if someone asked you what show this episode is from, you would have no idea. This scene is so familiar in its execution to this point. But at about 35 seconds in, the music changes, and we start to see shots of a street drain intercut with the images of the man walking down the street. Immediately, something feels off. And then, one minute in, we see eyes. These eyes are an unnatural yellow, but feel strangely human. These eyes can be seen as heimlich in themselves, at least their humanity. This, then, gives us context for how to see the uncanny in this scene. For the uncanny to exist, there must be both the heimlich and the unheimlich. In this opening scene, we see the heimlich in the first 35 seconds. When the music changes and the sewer is shown more prominently, the scene doesn’t immediately switch to being uncanny. It then becomes just creepy. In Freud’s words, “Something has to be added to what is novel and unfamiliar to make it uncanny.” (Freud 370) This added thing are the eyes. The eyes make this scene uncanny. Their human appearance and inhuman color and proportions, their heimlich and unheimlich, give the scene the uncanny nature that the episode goes on to be defined by.

Unheimlich

The unheimlich, as laid out in “The Uncanny”, is the counterpart to the heimlich. The German word unheimlich: is obviously the opposite of heimlich, heimisch, meaning ‘familiar’ ; ‘native’, ‘belonging to the home’…” (Freud, 370). Meaning that the unheimlich is unfamiliar and strange. Anything that is uncanny must possess both heimlich and unheimlich traits, as was laid out in the previous section.

The second part of the opening of “Squeeze” (01:04) displays the unheimlich far more prominently than the first part. The unheimlich elements of the uncanny are a crucial part of the uncanny, for without the unheimlich, there would only be normal, familiar things. But, as Freud says, “what is novel can easily become frightening and uncanny…” (Freud, 370). Let’s take a look at the unheimlich elements that make this scene frightening. When we enter the scene, we are met with a handheld camera, tracking the man on his journey to his office. This signifies to the audience that something is watching him, or that he is being followed. However, the next shot is a steady shot of an elevator door, the door opens, and reveals the cord that runs the elevator, not the inside of the elevator car. This is where the unheimlich rears its head. By showing us an empty elevator shaft, and not the inside of an elevator car, our expectations are subverted, and what was once heimlich has become unheimlich. The scene continues. As the man gets up to go grab some coffee, and in his office, we see one of the screws on his air conditioning vent start to come undone. The unheimlich appears here once more. The screw being taken off is unfamiliar to us, as that is usually accompanied by a human presence. In this case, however, there is no human presence to remove the screw. Whatever we’re waiting for possesses abilities that we can’t truly understand until we see the creature at work. And therein lives the unheimlich.

Imaginary

The imaginary is a concept critical to Lacan and his theory of the mirror stage. The imaginary is a theory that has great influence on the mirror stage, and the formation of a human’s ego. It speaks to the relationship between how we view ourselves, how we want to be seen, and how others see us.  We can use the character Fox from The X-Files to see the concept of the imaginary in play. After the interrogation scene, Fox reveals that he put in questions about Tooms’ age in order to goad him into telling a lie. Fox, looking at the lie detector’s charts, sees that the levels spiked on these questions, indicating that Tooms did lie. And yet, nobody in the room believes that these questions are of any merit to the case. While it’s later revealed that Fox was right, as is usually the case, we can see here a very critical part to the development of Fox’s character. Seeing as this is only the third episode of the entire series, Fox is still developing what I will be calling his narrative ego. In this scene, I believe that the imaginary is in full swing. We can see how he perceives himself: a man who considers every possibility and trusts his instincts. We can see how he wants to be perceived by others: he wants them to believe him, and believe in him. His actions would not have been taken without notice had he felt that the others in the room would have given his ideas a fair shot. And finally, and perhaps most obviously, we can see how the others in the room perceive him: a conspiracy theorist lunatic whackjob. With all these elements at play, Fox, as a character, is starting to recognize himself, through his narrative ego. He is in the mirror stage, and as the show progresses, will grow into a fuller being. But the groundwork must be laid, as it is in our lives.

Works Cited

Freud, Sigmund. “The ‘Uncanny.’” Essay. In Collected Papers, IV. London, United Kingdom: Hogarth Press, 1948.

Lacan, Jacques. “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function.” Essay. In Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English, 1st ed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.

Introduction

This post will use the works “The Ruling Class and The Ruling Ideas,” by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels1, Louis Althusser’s “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”2, Christian Metz’s “Some Points in the Semiotics of the Cinema”3, and “Postmodernism and Consumer Society,” by Fredric Jameson4, along with the opening scene from Greta Gerwig’s film Barbie5 to analyze and visualize the trans-decade conversation that has been happening between critical theorists. This post will first lay out the ways in which the theorists align in their views, with a photo of Karl Marx preceding it, because that sounds fun. Then, it will lay out the ways in which they disagree. And finally, it will take a look at how these thinkers converse through the lens of the opening scene from Barbie.

Similarities

All of the theorists I have listed and will be analyzing have several commonalities. The most obvious is their near universal critique of capitalism. Metz is the one theorist who doesn’t offer a direct critique of capitalism in his work, as it is heavily focused on semiotics as they pertain to cinema. That said, he does reference terms and ideas that speak to ideas of capitalism, such as “signifiers”, which are a key part of Baudrillard’s theory of simulacrum11, which Jameson draws heavy influence upon in his work. Each of these theorists also share their opinion on the importance of ideology in our lives and the systems we live in. Before I provide examples, I’ll provide a brief definition of ideology: ideology is a system of beliefs and ideas that dictate societal behavior and structures. Marx and Engels famously wrote that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.”6 Their analysis of ideology works in tandem with their critique of capitalism, positioning them not only side-by-side, but as one in the same. Althusser similarly looks at ideology in the lens of capitalism and labor production. He lays out his theories on Ideological State Apparatuses and Repressive State Apparatus. In his words, “What distinguishes the ISAs from the (Repressive) State Apparatus is the following basic difference: the Repressive State Apparatus functions ‘by violence’, whereas the Ideological State Apparatuses function ‘by ideology’.”7 He believes that these systems are used to control a society in order to maximize labor production. Jameson confronts ideology from a postmodernist point of view. His thinking is that if ideologies are the systems that make up our reality, then our ideologies are hollow, as our realities have become so. All of these theorists call upon historical and social threads, events, and ideas in order to make their points. Marx and Engels are an exception to this, but they participate in this conversation by acting as a sort of guiding star for Althusser. In just the first sentence of his “The State” section in “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”, he evokes Marx’s name, stating “The Marxist tradition is strict, here: in the Communist Manifesto and the Eighteenth Brumaire (and in all the later classical texts, above all in Marx’s writings on the Paris Commune and Lenin’s on State and Revolution), the State is explicitly conceived as a repressive apparatus.”8 Note how he also evokes Lenin, another key figure and theorist through history. Metz draws upon the works of nearly countless artists, theorists, and thinkers, in order to crystalize and solidify his arguments about the Semiotics of Cinema. Jameson does the same as Metz, but for postmodernism rather than semiotics and structuralism. It is clear that each of these authors see the thread that has been woven through the works that came before them, and recognize that they are a part of the thread that will follow.

Differences

Not every conversation is one of total agreement, as much as we might enjoy that. While there are very few, if any direct disagreements on specific points between these thinkers, they,  while sharing commonalities and ideas on several points, are coming to this conversation from different viewpoints. First of all, besides Marx and Engels and their connection to Althusser’s work, none of these theorists are coming to this conversation from the same subject. As I mentioned, Marx, Engels, and Althusser are more focused on ideology and how it relates to capitalism and labor production, whereas Metz is focused on semiotics and they pertain to cinema, something that Marx, Engles, and Althusser are not worried about in the slightest. Jameson works as a soft conceptual link between these thinkers, considering art in his analysis of a capitalist society. And yet, he still is coming to this from a view of postmodernism, not touching on most of the ideas laid out by the rest of these thinkers. These thinkers also disagree in their critiques of capitalism, in that they look at it from a variety of lenses that do not easily overlap. Marx and Engles are approaching this critique form a historical and economic perspective, as seen here: “This historical method which reigned in Germany, and especially the reason why, must be explained from its connection with the illusion of ideologists in general, e.g., the illusions of the jurists…”9. Althusser is diving more into the ways that ideology sustains capitalism through his invention of the concepts of the ISA’s and RSA’s. As I said before, he does use Marxist theories to help guide his points forward. Jameson’s critique is through the lens of postmodernism and consumerism, rather than through labor production and ideology in Marx, Engels, and Althusser’s analysis. As I mentioned previously, Jameson uses art in his analysis to a much higher degree than Marx, Engels, and Althusser do, as shown in statements such as, “think of the Faulknerian long sentence or of D.H. Lawrence's characteristic nature imagery; think of Wallace Stevens's peculiar way of using abstractions; think also of the mannerisms of the philosophers, of Heidegger for example, or Sartre; think of the musical styles of Mahler or Prokofiev.”10 He looks at how art and creativity is commodified through consumer culture, whereas Marx, Engels, and Althusser focus on how that culture is created and held up. Metz is probably the greatest outlier in this group, with some very slight commonalities. While semiotics can be used to understand capitalism and consumer culture, as we see with Jameson, but more so with Baudrillard’s work11, it is likely the subject that has the least to say about capitalism, especially when it comes to the semiotics of cinema. Metz is more so looking at how film can be understood as a language, through the signs and signifiers it conveys to us, as well as how narrative structure helps us understand this language, and helps convey the message of what the film is saying through this language.

Barbie

In order to effectively analyze and visualize the ways that Marx, Engels, Metz, and Jameson speak to one another, we must use a piece of media to do so. Greta Gerwig’s film Barbie (2023) was the biggest film of 2023. In the lead-up to its release, there was great speculation on what kind of film this would be. Gerwig is famous for her auteurist filmmaking and creative vision, while Barbie is famously a billion dollar venture from the mega-corporation Matel. The film would be produced by Mattel Pictures, leading to worries that the previously mentioned dichotomous aspects of the film would lead to a lesser product than Gerwig had been known for. The film opens with a scene that sets the tone for the entire film, with a humorous tone, and yet a sort of grandeur that makes the film feel important. This scene is an homage to the opening scene of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey12. We see little girls in mid-century attire playing with baby dolls in the same rocky and prehistoric environment that the apes were in at the beginning of Kubrick’s film. A narrator, who we come to know is Dame Helen Mirren, delivers a speech about how little girls used to only be able to play with baby dolls, to play as the role of a mother. We then see the little girls looking up in awe at something, which is shown to be the original Barbie doll, several times the size of the girls. Barbie, as portrayed by Margot Robbie, gives the girls, or perhaps the whole world, a wink. When she does this, the girls start to break their baby dolls and teacups, smashing them like the ape does in 2001: A Space Odyssey, as the Richard Strauss piece “Also sprach Zarathustra” plays, the same piece that appears in 2001: A Space Odyssey. After this, one of the little girls throws her doll up into the air, and it spins in the same way the bone spins when an ape throws it near the end of the 2001: A Space Odyssey scene. The doll suddenly transforms into a title card, and the music changes to a string piece reminiscent of the instrumental on Dua Lipa’s song “Dance the Night”.

In his piece “Some Points in the Semiotics of Cinema”, Metz argues that film is a language as much as the written word is, and much like the written word, conveys messages to us through signs and signifiers. These signs and signifiers are conveyed through shots, musical cues, and other elements of the film. This opening scene to Barbie has a lot it is trying to convey. Gerwig understands the importance of 2001: A Space Odyssey, as it is one of the greatest science fiction films of all time. By delivering this scene as an homage, Gerwig is telling that audience that this film will be important. Not only does this scene announce the importance of this film, but also the importance of Barbie as a figure of female liberation. By showing us Barbie from a worm’s eye view, the camera delivers to us the message of Barbie as a gargantuan figure, not only physically, within the story of the scene, but culturally as well, especially when paired with the narration. This opening does have a sense of humor to it, in stark contrast to the Kubrick scene. The little girls in mid-century clothing and their teacups and dolls feel humorously out of place against the backdrop of the prehistoric land in a way that the apes did not. Similarly, Barbie feels out of place when she appears, in direct contrast to the sleek, black obelisk that infatuated the apes in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Her striped swimsuit, big sunglasses, and bold hairstyle are the exact opposite of how the obelisk is perceived in Kubrick's scene. However, it is unclear whether this scene is parody or not. And even if it is not, it is not quite clear whether it is pastiche either. Frederic Jameson states that “Both pastiche and parody involve the imitation or, better still, the mimicry of other styles and particularly of the mannerisms and stylistic twitches of other styles.”10 The difference, as Jameson would say, is that “Pastiche is, like parody, the imitation of a peculiar or unique style, the wearing of a stylistic mask, speech in a dead language: but it is a neutral practice of such mimicry, without parody's ulterior motive, without the satirical impulse, without laughter, without that still latent feeling that there exists something normal compared to which chat is being imitated is rather comic.”13 Through this lens, it cannot in good conscience be said that the opening scene of Barbie is parody, for we have seen through the lens of Metz that Gerwig takes this film very seriously, and believes in its importance, and the importance. That said, pastiche is a parody that has no reference point, no reality to spoof. This scene clearly has a reality it is paying homage to: that of Kubrick’s film.

The opening scene of Barbie also delivers great social commentary, particularly of the feminist variety. Remember the moment where Helen Mirren notes that up until Barbie came around, little girls could only play with baby dolls and perform maternal duties. The implication is that Barbie changed all of that. If we see the baby dolls through the lens of Althusser, we can see that they are an Ideological State Apparatus. Ideological State Apparatuses work in connection with the Repressive State Apparatus to keep the production of labor running efficiently. In the 1950s, when Barbie was invented, the role of women in American society was clear: stay at home, take care of the kids, and make men’s lives easier. The baby dolls, then, can be seen as training. These dolls had been put in the hands of little girls since they were no more than toddlers, and they were told to start performing their duties as mothers and caretakers. When Barbie arrived, as the film is telling us, she disrupted the ISA of the baby doll, showing the little girls of America that they didn’t have to be mothers and caretakers. They could be whatever they wanted. It must be remembered, however, that “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.”6 When Mattel began producing Barbie dolls, they began to see profits come from this idea of female liberation, and took advantage of what Barbie symbolized. Of course, Barbie may have been a symbol of female empowerment when she was an infantile invention, but as her grasp of the toy market tightened, so did her grasp over the ideas of those who were playing with her. She imposed unrealistic expectations onto the little girls of America, leading to things such as mass body dysmorphia and confidence issues. And Mattel said that the only way to fix that was to be more like Barbie. And to be more like Barbie, you had to buy more Barbie, thus continuing the consumerist culture that Jameson was so critical of in his work.

Conclusion

By reviewing the works of these four theorists, we have drawn a very clear path on which one could walk in order to see the conceptual thread between authors. The ideas of capitalism and ideology shine a guiding light through their works, as it does with the opening scene of Barbie. This conversation, that we see starting with Marx, but has truly existed for centuries before him, will continue to be had, and the works of art that our society produces can show us the way, as Barbie has done for us.

Works Cited

1Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The Ruling Class and The Ruling Ideas,” in Marx & Engels Collected Works, 5th ed. C.J. Arthur (London, United Kingdom: Lawrence & Wishart, 2010). 

2Louis Althusser, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses," in The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, 1st ed. Aradhana Sharma and Akhil Gupta (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006).

3Christian Metz, “Some Points in the Semiotics of the Cinema,” in Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, 7th ed. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999).

4Jameson, Frederic. “Postmodernism and Consumer Society.” Essay. In Modernism/Postmodernism. Peter Brooker (London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2014). 

5Barbie. Film. United States: Warner Bros. Pictures, 2023. 0:00:00 - 0:03:23

6Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The Ruling Class and The Ruling Ideas,” in Marx & Engels Collected Works, 5th ed. C.J. Arthur (London, United Kingdom: Lawrence & Wishart, 2010). 59

7Louis Althusser, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses," in The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, 1st ed. Aradhana Sharma and Akhil Gupta (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006). 93

8Louis Althusser, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses," in The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, 1st ed. Aradhana Sharma and Akhil Gupta (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006). 90

9Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The Ruling Class and The Ruling Ideas,” in Marx & Engels Collected Works, 5th ed. C.J. Arthur (London, United Kingdom: Lawrence & Wishart, 2010). 62

10Jameson, Frederic. “Postmodernism and Consumer Society.” Essay. In Modernism/Postmodernism. Peter Brooker (London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2014). 166

11Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra from Simulations.” Essay. In Modernism/Postmodernism. Peter Brooker (London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2014).

122001: A Space Odyssey. Film. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1968. 0:00:00 - 0:19:52

Parody

In Fredric Jameson’s “'Postmodernism and Consumer Society”, he introduces the concept of parody, and how it relates to his overarching ideas about postmodernism and consumerism. To him, parody relates heavily to one of the key components of postmodernism: pastiche. To Jameson, “Both pastiche and parody involve the imitation or, better still, the mimicry of other styles and particularly of the mannerisms and stylistic twitches of other styles” (Jameson, 166). In his eyes, parody does this with the intention of humor. For Jameson, “the general effect of parody is - whether in sympathy or with malice - to cast ridicule on the private nature of these stylistic mannerisms and their excessiveness and eccentricity with respect to the way people normally speak or write” (Jameson, 166). The film Lola Rennt, known in English as Run Lola Run, contains three different time loops. In each of them, we see our two protagonists, Lola and Manni, go around their unnamed German city, which I will be referring to as Berlin, as that is where the film was shot, encountering many locations in different ways as they go through their episodes. One such location is the staircase that Lola runs down as she sets off on her journey at the beginning of each of these time loops. This staircase is hardly filmed, opting rather to be shown in a hyper-stylized animated style. We are introduced to this animation style during the opening credits. The first time loop, which I will be calling “the original”, shows Lola running down the stairs, then a close up of her face, then she screams, and then we see a man and his dog, who growls at Lola, frightening her. She runs past, and leaves the building no problem. The second loop is where parody is introduced. The second loop comes at the time when we understand the structure of the film: time loops. Thus, we believe that the second loop will be the same as the original. This is not the case, as becomes apparent once Lola is tripped down the stairs by the young man with the dog. We see the man and the dog for much longer than in the original, and we zoom in on the man giving a sneaky grin. His braces sparkle and he laughs a cartoonishly smug giggle. When he trips Lola, she screams and falls down the stairs. These elements, coupled with the simple, perhaps goofy-looking art style, lend heavily to the comedy of the moment. The second staircase scene is, thus, a parody of the original. It maintains the style of the original, but the content is far more humorous.

Pastiche

In Fredric Jameson’s “'Postmodernism and Consumer Society”, he introduces the concept of pastiche, and how it relates to his overarching ideas about postmodernism and consumerism. To him, pastiche is a key component of postmodernism. “Both pastiche and parody involve the imitation or, better still, the mimicry of other styles and particularly of the mannerisms and stylistic twitches of other styles” (Jameson, 166). However, pastiche, as Jameson says, “is blank parody, parody that has lost its sense of humor…” (Jameson, 167). In short, pastiche reproduces, without offering mimicry or malice towards the thing it is reproducing. The film Run Lola Run contains three different time loops. In each of them, we see our two protagonists, Lola and Manni, go around Berlin, encountering many locations in different ways as they go through their episodes. One such location that I believe exemplifies the idea of pastiche is the bank where Lola’s father works. In the original time loop, we learn that Lola’s father has had an affair, and is planning on running away with the woman. When Lola comes to ask him for money, he escorts her out of the building, calling her a weirdo. In the second time loop, Lola enters on her father and his mistress having an argument. The mistress is pregnant by another man. When Lola enters the room, she seemingly remembers the events of the original time loop, and thus, she lashes out at the mistress. Her father slaps her. Lola runs out, grabs the security guard’s gun, and holds the entire bank up until she gets her money. It takes no genius to know that this scene could have been hilarious. All the elements of parody are present. It is the saddest version of the original loop, and that could be played as a humorous thing. Instead, the film opts to play the scene as seriously as possible. The music, while pulsing, is quiet. The actors perform their roles in a way that isn’t over acting, and isn’t under acting. The reality of the scene is highlighted, making it all the more serious. As mentioned above, pastiche is when something is reproduced without offering mimicry or malice towards the thing it is reproducing. This scene does exactly that. There are no silly expressions on the screen or goofy callbacks. The scene is what it is, and what it is is serious.

Simulacrum

In Jean Baudrillard’s “Simulacra and Simulations”, he outlines his ideas on what would become a key postmodernist theory, the idea of simulacra. Simulacra, to Baudrillard, refer to copies or representations of reality that have lost their connection to the original reality they are trying to represent. This happens through a process of four steps. One, an item becomes a reflection of reality. Two, an item masks and perverts basic reality. Three, an item masks the absence of basic reality. And finally, an item bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever, becoming simulacra (Baudrillard, 152-153). This film, Run Lola Run, as a whole is one that embodies the spirit of simulacra very well. The time loops offer a very interesting case to be analyzed in the eyes of simulacra. In particular, the casino near the end of the film is a great framing for simulacra. In the final time loop, Lola runs through the streets of Berlin, this time with everything slightly different from the first two. She is unable to reach her father by the time he leaves his bank, so she runs to the casino to try to win 100,000 marks with just one 100 mark chip. Let’s think of the first time loop as “reality”, though the other two are framed as being as real as the first. Truthfully, we don’t know if the other two are real. Perhaps these are the dying thoughts of Lola. Regardless, if we take the first time loop as “reality”, then we have already achieved step one by just being in this situation. The time loop is a reflection of Lola’s reality. We have also achieved the second step. Through the slightly different second time loop, basic reality has been masked and perverted, though still seeming to be a reflection of basic reality. And we now find ourselves absent from basic reality, being masked by the very time loops that created this absence. Being in the third time loop, we are convinced that we are in a state of basic reality, for that is what we now know to be true. But this is not reality. This is something else completely. And so here we are. In front of the casino, a brand new location. This new space bears no resemblance to any reality we’ve encountered before, therefore becoming in itself a simulacra.

Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a concept introduced by Fredric Jameson in his piece “'Postmodernism and Consumer Society”. He does not give a clear definition, but it can be described as a movement of creative and stylistic advancements and changes across a multitude of genres and mediums that push against high modernism, the style that existed beforehand. It is also a new way of cultural and economic thinking. Postmodernism pushes against consumerism and instead promotes free thought. The film Run Lola Run operates in a space that is greatly influenced by postmodernist ideals and virtues. I will start with the scene at the end of the first time loop, in which Lola is shot, and she sees herself and Manni having a discussion in bed. A key postmodernist idea is the rejection of objectivity, and the embrace of self-referentiality. As we see in this scene, and very soon after, Run Lola Run is the epitome of these ideas. In her dying moments Lola looks into herself, not to what she may perceive as reality, that being that she is shot and will die. In her conversation with Manni, which may or may not have happened, she comes to realize that she does not wish to die in this way. So, she doesn’t. The film, as we then see, develops a time loop. By ignoring reality and objectivity, Lola acquires a power to relive the 20 minutes, by sheer will. We can also see this postmodernist thought through the animation style used during Run Lola Run’s opening credits and staircase sequences. Jameson outlines that modernist artists are being pushed out in favor of postmodernists by the younger generation (Jameson, 164). It would seem that this animation is a part of this movement, disregarding the maximalist styles of artists like Picasso and Pollock, and opting for a more simplistic, rough approach that matches the rugged nature of the rest of the film. The stylistic and narrative choices made by the creators of this film greatly enhance the postmodernist view of the film.

Simulation

In his piece “Simulacra and Simulations”, Jean Baudilard introduces his concept of simulation. Simulation is to Baudrillard a key idea of postmodernist thought, in which representations and signs take on a life of their own, becoming detached from any reality that previously existed. He gives that example of Disneyland as a space that exists in our modern world that is a simulation. “The Disneyland imaginary is neither true nor false: it is a deterrence machine set up in order to rejuvenate in reverse the fiction of the real. ” (Baudrillard, 154). To analyze simulations in the film Run Lola Run, let's take a look at one of the many side characters in the film, the woman with the stroller who Lola passes first on her journey to Manni. We see her in all three time loops. First, we see that after Lola bumps into her the government comes to take her child away, and she ends up taking another child from a temporarily unsupervised stroller in the park. Next, we see her win the lottery after Lola bumps her. And finally, after Lola avoids her, we see her join the sisterhood and become a nun. Let’s think of this woman as a sign. She and the rest of the side characters who we are shown the futures of are representations of the butterfly effect and determinism. However, she becomes, or perhaps represents a simulation during the final time loop, in which Lola avoids her entirely. After Lola passes her, we are still shown a flash forward, in which she becomes a nun. This can be seen as her, the sign, taking on a life of her own. Her actions are neither positive nor negative, being presented in a rather neutral manner. She has lost contact with what she was before, which is a largely positive or negative reality. She has entered the simulation of neutrality. We see this with the other side characters as well. The biker gives the bike away to a homeless man, the driver doesn’t crash his car (or at least doesn’t get beat up), and the woman in the bank, who previously was married or killed herself, is not shown with anything. These people, by avoiding Lola, have become simulations.

Works Cited

Jameson, Frederic. “Frederic Jameson, ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’.’” Essay. In Modernism/Postmodernism, 166. New York, New York: Routledge, 2014. 

Jameson, Frederic. “Frederic Jameson, ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’.’” Essay. In Modernism/Postmodernism, 167. New York, New York: Routledge, 2014. 

Baudrillard, Jean. “Jean Baudrillard, from ‘Simulacra and Simulations.’” Essay. In Modernism/Postmodernism, 152-153. New York, New York: Routledge, 2014. 

Jameson, Frederic. “Frederic Jameson, ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’.’” Essay. In Modernism/Postmodernism, 164. New York, New York: Routledge, 2014. 

Baudrillard, Jean. “Jean Baudrillard, from ‘Simulacra and Simulations.’” Essay. In Modernism/Postmodernism, 154. New York, New York: Routledge, 2014. 

Mental Labour

Mental labour is one section of the division of labour. It works in tandem with material labour. Mental labour is what is done by the ruling class. It is the process of creating the ideas and general cognition that is disseminated through a society. In “The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas. How the Hegelian' Conception of the Domination of the Spirit in History Arose”, written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, it is stated that “one part appears as the thinkers of the class (its active, conceptive ideologists, who make the formation of the illusions of the class about itself their chief source of livelihood)” (Marx and Engels, 60), this part being the ruling class, and thus doing the mental labour. In this commercial, titled “Alexa Loses Her Voice”, we see the Amazon Echo lose its ability to reply to people, thus prompting Amazon to put on replacement voices, the voices being those of celebrities. Namely, Gordon Ramsey, Cardi B, Rebel Wilson, and Sir Anthony Hopkins. They all have headsets on, and answer any questions that are thrown at them in ridiculous fashion. It’s a very funny commercial. It is also a very stark view at how the ruling class produces the mental labour that is disseminated to the masses. This manifests on two levels, the first being the most obvious: celebrities giving the everyday person the answers. The people shown answering as Alexa are very rich, very famous, and in many circles very powerful people. They are people that benefit from highly capitalistic systems that are put in place. Thus, the idea that they would be the ones to inform the public about any query they may have is a perfect example of the ruling class producing mental labour. The other level this manifests on is that of Amazon controlling the celebrities. Take this quote, “…inside this class one part appears as the thinkers of the class (its active, conceptive ideologists, who make the formation of the illusions of the class about itself their chief source of livelihood), while the others' attitude to these ideas and illusions is more passive and receptive, because they are in reality the active members of this class and have less time to make up illusions and ideas about themselves” (Marx and Engels, 60). This can be seen as a division in two classes, yes, but also a division within the ruling class. Jeff Bezos, who is seen in the commercial, and Amazon, one of the most profitable companies on the planet, is telling the celebrities to disseminate information to the masses, and this is the ruling-ruling class, producing the highest form of mental labour.

Material Labour

Material is the other side of the “division of labour” coin. Material labour is the work that the lower classes do that falls in line with the ideas created through mental labour. In “The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas. How the Hegelian' Conception of the Domination of the Spirit in History Arose”, written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, it is stated that “ the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force” (Marx and Engels, 59). Thus, the ruling class must be in charge of the material labour through its ideas, a.k.a. mental labour. In this commercial, entitled “Thank You Mama”, created by Procter & Gamble, in collaboration with the Olympics, we see many mothers raising their children and performing everyday tasks. Their children grow up to be olympians. This commercial promotes the ideas of the division of labour in several ways. On a most basic and fundamental level, we are seeing a multinational corporation promote what some may call antiquated ideas of motherhood. Historically, women have been thought to be the caretakers of the home, while husbands are away at work. Having such a powerful brand like the Olympics enforce these roles is a perfect example of the ruling class disseminating their ideas unto the masses and continuing the material labour that is being produced. Procter & Gamble also has a stake in this. P&G produces many house cleaning, laundry, and baby care products, such as Dawn soap, Tide detergent, and Pampers diapers. They want their products to keep being used by the women in these roles. This commercial is also sending a message to mothers that they should continue to act in the ways they have historically had their roles, for if they do, their children will be able to achieve great things, such as become Olympians and win gold. The idea that one’s child will be more successful if a mother stays in her role as a home and child caretaker helps P&G’s profits greatly, thus, they disseminate this message through an emotional advertisement that is disguised as a celebration of motherhood.

Ruling Class

The ruling class is the class that governs all other people in a society. The ruling class controls the means of production in a society, thus giving the ruling class all the power in a society.  In “The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas. How the Hegelian' Conception of the Domination of the Spirit in History Arose”, written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, it is stated that the “ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force” (Marx and Engles, 59). In this commercial, entitled “She’s Always a Woman” (after the Billy Joel song of the same name), created by the British high-end department store brand John Lewis, we see the life of a woman play out. We follow her from infancy to childhood to university to adulthood, finally ending with her as a senior citizen. This commercial upholds the ideas of the ruling class in two ways: one through the eyes of race, and the other through the eyes of gender. Let’s go era by era and examine the racial dynamics in this commercial. In her childhood, we see about a total of three non-white people. In her adult life, we see two, and in her life as a senior citizen, we see one. It’s important to keep in mind John Lewis when analyzing this commercial. John Lewis is a company founded by white men, and caters to people with higher means. In the United Kingdom, which does not have a reputation for racism in the same way the United States does, class division is substantial. That said, that class division often manifests as white people having more money, and people of color having less. Thus, it can be seen that by John Lewis making this commercial, they are attempting to uphold the idea that white people control the wealth in the United Kingdom, thus controlling the means of production, and thus being the ruling class. On the front of gender, there is a patriarchal leaning to this commercial. As we go through this woman’s life, she begins to take on a more traditional role around the house. In her elderly life, she is seen serving drinks to guests while her husband sits and speaks with them. This promotes the idea that men are the ruling class.

Culture Industry

The culture industry is the systematic production and commercialization of cultural goods within a capitalist system. It prioritizes mass consumption and profit motives over artistic or intellectual endeavors. In “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”, written by Max Hornkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, it is said that “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio, and magazines form a system. Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together” (Hornkheimer and Adorno, 94). In this commercial, we follow a man, who sings a song about his day to day life. He is overworked, and doesn’t have time to be in all the places he needs to be. He comes to the realization that in order to be able to do all the things he wants to do around Christmas Time (this is a Christmas themed commercial), he needs to make clones of himself at the toy factory he works at. He does so, and is finally able to spend the time he wants with his family. This commercial represents the culture industry on many levels. The most obvious is the commodification of song that exists in the conceit of the advertisement itself. This advertisement works so well because the song that was created for it is musically interesting and catchy. Had this just been released as a single on streaming services, this could be seen as a real creative achievement. It’s the visuals and method of delivery that make this song into a product of the culture industry. Sainsbury’s, the British supermarket that made this commercial, has taken artistic expression and is using it for profit, the very definition of the culture industry. On another level, the advertisement commodifies emotional aspects, like the experience of being with one’s family, and experiencing Christmas. These things are wonderful things (the ladder only if you celebrate, of course), but they are used in the commercial for financial gain, not as a true appreciation for what they are. Finally, the man is seen working in a toy factory. Toy factories can be seen as monuments of the culture industry, as they mass produce and spit out things for people to use in creative ways. Those creative ways, however, are only defined by the industry they are created under.

Ideological State Apparatuses

Ideological State Apparatuses exist as one half of the State Apparatuses, the other half being Repressive State Apparatuses. Ideological State Apparatuses, as Louis Althusser says in his essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”,  are things such as “the religious ISA (the system of the different Churches), the educational ISA (the system of the different public and private ‘Schools’), the family ISA, the legal ISA, the political ISA (the political system, including the different Parties), the trade-union ISA, the communications ISA (press, radio and television, etc.), the cultural ISA (Literature, the Arts, sports, etc.)” (Althusser, 92). They exist to disseminate the ideas of the ruling class unto a society, while Repressive State Apparatuses exist to keep the lower classes in line through violence. In this commercial, created by the language learning company Berlitz, we see a German Coastguard officer take his post at a radio. A man tells him what everything is, and he then sits down and does his job. A U.S. ship radios and tells him that they are sinking. He replies, “What are you thinking about?” Thinking being pronounced sinking, such as it would in a German accent. This commercial is quite humorous. It is also representative of three of the Ideological State Apparatuses that are listed above: the educational Ideological State Apparatus, the communications Ideological State Apparatus, and the cultural Ideological State Apparatus. As it pertains to the educational aspect, this advertisement is for a language learning app. This app, which is created by a corporation, exists as a part of a system of an educational ISA. That a corporation, which is one of the predominant language learning companies, is teaching much of the professional workforce how to learn languages shows how this is an educational ISA. This extends to the communication ISA, as if most are learning to speak the same way, they will be taught to communicate the same way. This too leads to a dissemination of ideas created by the ruling class unto the masses. As for the cultural ISA, language is a cultural thing. Seeing as a multinational corporation is trying to teach the world how to communicate, it would be fair to say that this company is attempting to control the world’s cultures.

Works Cited

Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. 1987. Dialectic of Enlightenment. 5th ed. Stanford University Press.

Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. 1987. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. 5th vol. Lawrence & Wishart.