Saturday, December 6, 2008

Mission: Gain Land

Two completely different texts written in two completely different era’s aren’t usually thought of as having a common base, however, In Niccolo Machiavelli’s guide The Prince, written in 1513, a standard formation of the rules of the land in which Tennessee William’s Pulitzer Prize Winning Play, Cat On a Hot Tin Roof, first presented in 1955, follows. Machiavelli states many important “rules” for one to gain land, keep land, and how to get from one step to the next. William’s play is about a southern family attempting to maintain their land by deciding which son will inherit it. Manipulation, greed, conspiracy, death and family are main keys to maintaining land in any country at any time, Machiavelli wrote the guide book for any prince where as Williams follows the guides throughout his play.
Land is usually given to the first born son, in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, the older brother, Gooper, should have gained the estate from Big Daddy, however, younger brother, Brick is chosen for title of the land. Machiavelli states, “All principalities for which some record exists have been ruled…by a prince with barons holding title not by his grace but by right of inheritance. In states which are governed by a prince and his servants, the prince has greater authority because no one in his land recognizes anyone but him as master” (26). This translating into the idea that someone in line to inherit land is not determined by their personality rather by their right to inheritance, so why is the younger brother given opportunity to gain instead of the oldest son? Big Daddy says to Brick, “I thought about you. Should I or should I not, if the jig was up, give you this place when I go— since I hate Gooper an’ Mae an’ know that they hate me. —And I thought, No! —Then I thought, Yes! I couldn’t make up my mind. I hate Gooper and his five same monkeys and that bitch Mae! Why should I turn over twenty-eight thousand acres of the richest land this side of the valley Nile to not my kind” (112). Big Daddy’s decision is based on wants, not needs. His land would be in much better hands if his first-born son acquired it, as it usually is, however, he wants his second son, Brick, to own the land. Machiavelli believes the prince has the greatest power, in Cat on A Hot Tin Roof, Brick is the prince, everyone in the household knows he is in line for the estate, this makes everyone around him his servants, not physically, but financially. The money will belong to him and the family’s well-being will be up to him.



Power is a strong lesson to learn. Brick has the most power in this situation, even though Big Daddy has the control of who to give the estate to, Brick has the influence needed to steer Big Daddy’s decision. The family would be considered the mob in Machiavelli’s opinion, and when someone controls the mob, all goes well. However, this is a modern-day situation in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. The women in this play are outspoken, yet not independent. They still obey their husbands and elders, like a mob would have done in the 1500’s. Machiavelli writes, “For the mob is always impressed by appearances and by results; and the world is composed of the mob” (70). This is directly related to the women in the house. They each want appearances to stay upheld. Big Mama wants her son, Brick, to maintain their southern roots when he takes over the land. Maggie wants to live the life of luxury and the only way is to convince her husband, Brick, to procreate and accept the land from Big Daddy. Mae, on the other hand, being the wife of Gooper, would like nothing more than her husband to gain the land. Mae and Gooper are the conspirators, the antagonists, attempting to move up in society (in this case, society is the family).
All people in power have a chance of being over thrown, either by family or enemies and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is no exception. Gooper and Mae are determined to cause a rift in Big Daddy and Brick, allowing Gooper to inherit the land. Gooper has every right to want the estate. He is the first-born son, is much more responsible than Brick, has five children, and with one more on the way, is obviously the best candidate for title to the land. Machiavelli writes, “The worst he can fear from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them, but from a hostile nobility he must fear not only being abandoned but also being attacked” (44). The people who would attack Brick are his brother and sister-in-law, not physically, but emotionally, verbally, or conspire against him. Gooper and Mae know they are better for the land, so throughout the entire play, the two attempt to change Big Daddy’s mind—but to no avail. Big Daddy still plans on handing the land over to Brick. Machiavelli’s advice is very informational and would have handled well if given to Brick. As stated in Chris Barker’s “Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice” regarding Derrida’s term logocentrism, “by ‘logocentrism,’ Derrida means the reliance on fixed a priori transcendental meanings, that is universal meanings, concepts and forms of logic that exist within human reason before any other kinds of thinking occur” (84). Machiavelli’s ideas terming the prince are universal, in any situation these guidelines and “rules” exist and are practiced before any new ideas enter the situation, one always relies on existing theories and the family of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof does just that.



As mentioned in Cultural Studies Raymond Williams was quoted, “Culture is both constitutive and expressive of a social totality of human relations and practices” (57). Our culture has set limits regarding relationships of economic, gender and class systems. Maggie, being a woman, has the relationship of economic, gender and class regarding her inability to inherit anything. This role is left to the men in that culture. Gooper and Brick are the only heirs to inherit the land, had it been one male and one female, there is no doubt the female would be ignored as a candidate of inheritance. Barker then states in response to Williams, “By this he means that the economic sets limits to what can be done or expressed in culture. However, it does not determine the meaning of cultural practices in a direct one-to-one relationship” (57). This would explain why in private, Maggie and Brick switch roles. One-to-one relationships challenge common ideologies regarding roles. Maggie is the sexually aggressive mate where as Brick is the emotional partner drinking his way to contentment.


If there is an unspoken rule on gender roles regarding inheritance, does everyone automatically understand the rules or is it forced upon us when the timing needs to. The most common rule in both The Prince and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof regarding inheritance states the oldest son receives the largest amount of land and funds. It is evident as Big Daddy makes his own rule by choosing which son receives the land and funds that, as stated above, one-to-one relationships don’t always follow conventional rules. The characters in this play break all conventionalities.
Barker then states, “The further cultural practices are away from the core capitalist production process, the more they can operate autonomously” (57). His brilliant example is the idea of “individually produced art [being] more autonomous than mass-produced television” (57). Big Daddy and his family are away from the core capitalist production process because they operate their family as they please. Breaking common expectations allows them to be an individual household that stands out from the usual picture the perfect southern family makes.
Barker defines structuralism as “describing social formations as constituted by complex structures or regularities. It is concerned with how cultural meaning is produced” (57). This idea can be directed to Cat on a Hot Tin Roof’s Maggie character. She breaks the social formations of the submissive housewife by wearing tight skinned clothing and being aggressive towards her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law about property ownership. However, the biggest situation in which she breaks social formations is her approach to children. She doesn’t want to have them, she even hates them, but knows she and Brick have better odds of gaining the land if they had a son, therefore she attempts to convince Brick into impregnating her. Usually socially formed women start wanting children once married; it is engrained in women to have children. If one chooses not to, they are questioned why. Brick also battles social constraints by drinking himself until he feels the “click” meaning everything will be all right. He hobbles around all day, drinking as much as he can, ignoring his wife’s needs and his parent’s wishes. Although his father idolizes him and his mother considers him her only son, Brick can’t realize what an opportunity he is given. To own his father’s land would set him up for life and he and Maggie would be stable financially.

Michael Foucault is known for his interpretations on human sexuality and its constraints. His text, The History of Sexuality states, “Three major explicit codes—apart from the customary regularities and constraints of opinion—governed sexual practices: canonical law, the Christian pastoral, and civil law” (683). Civil law is emphasized in the two texts, yet canonical and Christian pastoral laws also make a big influence throughout The Prince. Civil laws regulate society in the old South, and the civil law states how each individual should behave. Women have their submissive roles that make them follow behind their husbands, while men have their role of inheriting their father’s estates and making a name for themselves.

Foucault symbolized the “laws” of society and which aspects should be followed. The civil law reiterates the notions of expectations every individual has, and it is used throughout Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Barker’s views on ideas regarding social constraints and one-to-one relationships restricting actual social limitations and Machiavelli’s notion of grace as a weighing mechanism in determining what is right and who is rightful to inherit are evident in the play. All of these texts point to one common issue: rules and roles of society can change at any moment and by any person. Big Daddy chooses the unconventional younger son to inherit the land. Maggie is the aggressive partner in her marriage with Brick. Yet, they are all under one roof, supporting the idea of family, however broken it may be.

According to Machiavelli, the more heirs one has, the better the chances of securing one’s lineage and land. Brick understands this and eventually gives into his wife’s demands by procreating a child. He may be an alcoholic and a has-been football player, but he has one thing his older brother will never have: the grace needed to get what he wants. His ‘grace’ is appreciated by his mother and father, allowing their decision to feel correct; one may ask if they are making the right choice, and from an outsider’s viewpoint, the answer may be no; but Big Daddy and Big Mama love their youngest son and denounce the oldest son. Grace allowed Brick to strive; order of birth ruined Gooper’s chances of gaining what is considered rightfully his. Machiavelli’s guidelines are relative from the 16th century to present day American life, and I think he’d be proud to see his words of advice rewarding.

Works Cited

Barker, Chris. “Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice.” Third Edition. Sage Publications. Los Angeles. 2008

Foucault, Michael. The History of Sex. Handout. 683-691.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Ed. Daniel Donno. Bantam Classic. New York. 2003.

Williams, Tennessee. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. New Directions Books. New York. 1975.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Plastic Melts

Southern California as we know it has become as fake as breast implants. Everyone is looking for a way to "enhance" their appearance, whether it be botox, breast augmentation, liposuction, penis enlargement, vaginal rejuvenation, the list goes on. The point is as Susan Bardo states in her essay, "Material Girl: The Effacements of Postmodern Culture,"(Women are never happy with themselves) If we are never happy with ourselves, it is implied, that is due to ouor female nature, not to be taken too seriously or made into a 'political question'" (1102). This epidemic of making oneself better than what we origionally are is never going to end until something changes the way individuals view themselves.

It can be argued that self image is passed down from generation to generation or it is controlled by the media and what it "in" at a given moment in time. During the 20's it was the Flapper Scene, the 50's and 60's Greasers, 60's and 70's Hippies; but in the 2000's.... the quest to look perfect? Many women and men go to extremes to look perfect, but who is it that determines what is perfect?

I think we should have a long and hard conversation with those making the criterian for perfectness. Perhaps feed them more than they are used to, knock them around a little bit, suggest counseling. If anyone has anyother suggestions, let me know :)

Monday, November 24, 2008

"Green World" a No No

For the first time this semester, I do not know what to discuss about chapter 14 of
Barker.

The one item that caught my eye is on page 467 is the question "Can we describe the
Green movement as a New Social Movement?" I believe we can.... The 'Green
Movement' is occuring more rapidly due to knowledge of the damages we as society are
causing. However, I think in the midst of awareness, I believe we are still causing more
damage. The news travels by waves to our radios, by cords and plugs to our televisions
or by paper through the papers.

We are causing harm by trying to prevent it. How can we stop the issues on this earth?
There will never be a "green" world, we have become too accustomed to how we live and
are too stubborn to give up our resources.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

You're As Young Or As OLD as You think

"The Ambiguity of Youth".... this is such a great sub-title in Barker's Chapter 11, "Youth, Style, and Resistance." Youth can mean so many things, innocence, naivity, freedom, captivity, non-responsible. Many people look back to their childhood and wish for it again. Yet others are glad to older and wiser. Barker states, "However we seek to define it, youth remains an ambiguous concept" (409).

Peter Pan didn't want to grow up.... Wendy knew she needed to. Which is right? Living a lifetime of childhood would be great to many people, yet enjoying your childhood, then moving onto adulthood isn't so bad either. Barker continues to write, "Youth has been an ideological signifier charged with utopian images of the future" (409).

Is it the naivity or innocence of youth to view the world in a Utopian image? I think it's the innocence of childhood causing children to view the world as equal. When young we're always taught 'share your toys', 'say please', 'be nice', yet when we are older it's, don't share, rent out; I want it now; and it's all about me.

Youth is the time of innocence and equality, so I leave you now with the questions, "When do youth's eyes open to reality?" and "Who or what opened their eyes?"

Monday, November 17, 2008

Cyberspace as a Get Away

We all know those individuals who seem to vanish behind closed doors and escape reality into the world of cyberspace. Whether it be a friend, relative a significant other or yourself, everyone knows someone who attracts to the anonymity of a new identity where communication exists with the click of a mouse and the creation of a character.

Therapy sessions used to be between an individual needing advice and a professional looking to give it, however, nowadays, therapy sessions involve expressing oneself by becoming something else and acting through it online. Barker states, "It is argued that by enabling players to mask their worldly identites, virtual space allows a range of identity performances that are not tied to material bodies" (360). Do we now have different personalities? Does everyone who becomes addicted to cyberspace have Multiple Personality Disorder and their personalities are released via video games, chat rooms, blogs even.

Barker continues to state, "The problem, of course, is that actors in cyberspace remain tied to the everyday material world whose impact on the virtual universe persists" (360). Are there certain traits in an individual who fall into the supremacy of loss of identity. Does social class lead to the need to express oneself via a character? If someone is in a low-paying dead-end job and wants to pretend they have a million dollars, why not behave like the person you want to be where no one knows the real you. It's reality versus fantasy; one can pretend to be anything or anyone they want with no consequences.
A world of make believe can be all someone wants to believe in. They can forget about the reality of things, and lock themselves in cyberspace to become what they really want to be.

Friday, November 14, 2008

"Women are as Fucked a Group as Ever" in Five Minutes of "Something's Gotta Give"

Casondra Colizzi
English 313
Dr. Wexler
November 18, 2008
Movie Clip: Something’s Gotta Give
Writer/ Director: Nancy Meyers


“Women are as Fucked a Group as Ever in Five Minutes of Something’s Gotta Give”

Erika Berry is a talented and successful playwright in Nancy Meyers Film Something’s Gotta Give. When her daughter brings over an older boyfriend, 40 years her senior, Erika finds herself having to make reasons as to why she is still a divorcee. Older women who are not married or widowed are questioned as to why they never remarried, but as in this scene, older men, especially the lucky one’s like Harry Sanborn, are praised for never having been married. Women are still considered spinsters and hags if they don’t share their bed with the same man after a certain age. Society is supposed to be in a progression towards equality, yet even in a romantic comedy, the presupposed notions of the bachelor and the spinster are still strongly evident. Zoe, Erika’s sister, plays the narrator in this scene for viewers to recognize the underlying notion of this film: Women are as fucked a group as ever. Although women are as successful as men, and are treated much better now than before the women’s movement, we still must fall into certain conventions regarding marital status. Even though our paychecks are as high as men, our lifelong struggle for equality still must be fought, American society still portrays the idea of women having to be married in order to be successful, but the question still states, “Why do I have to defend this time in my life?” Women will forever be defending why or why not they are living the way they are, whether it be career-wise, single, or childless; society is still living in a pre-women’s movement era, and will be this way until everyone recognizes the ties still on younger and older women living their lives in the style they choose.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Fordism-- Selective Wages

Fordism... interesting. As stated by Barker, "The post-1945 economies of the western world, and especially of Britain and America, have been dominated by 'Fordism' as an economic practice and Keynesianism as the economic policy of nation-states." Keynesianism, as defined by Wikipedia, is a means that "the state can stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector - through, for example, interest rates, taxation and public projects." Between Fordism and Keynesianism, societies could begin earning top dollar for their labor-- however, Barker also states who deserves the top dollar.... white men!!!

After reading this section regarding the need to pay 'core-laborers' top dollar in order for the workers to afford top dollar products, I realized the manipulation in these words. Who are 'core-laborers' in a factory? Well, not women. Barker continues to say, "A system of relatively high wages, at least for core workers, in order to sustain the purchasing of high-volume production. Allied to a relatively well-paid core-labour force was a low-wage sector in which women and people of colour were over-represented." The big-time companies wanted to be represented by their items being sold... so of course the people buying them are selective. If a company wants to be viewed in a certain way, they would want only certain people buying their products. And if a company has control over how much their workers make, and they want their workers to afford certain products, then the company will give higher wages to their workers who qualify into the realm of acceptability. (Of course, this is only what the company considers acceptable).