http://features.peta.org/VeggieLove/
Sturgeon's book makes a strong case for the importance of critically examining popular culture for its political implications. There is no such thing as harmless, innocuous advertising, and the ones that use the ideology of "naturalization" are particularly problematic. Why? On what grounds does she make the case that popular culture is so important to examine, and do you agree? Why are gender, race, and nation important lenses to examine cultural texts that use "nature"?
YOUR TASK:
In your blog, explore any or all of these questions by posting an image or cultural text that you analyze in a Sturgeonian way. For example, Sturgeon might argue that the "veggie love" PETA advertisement campaign that I posted here trades on sexism to promote vegetarianism, a point that is heightened when we "meat our meat" (a pig) at the end of a series of thumbnail shots of the women we could choose to meet, which likens the women to the pig. "Helping animals" (an ad inside the ad) seems totally consistent with the kind of objectification of women going on here. I could unpack this further with closer analysis about the absence of racially non-white women in it... Or is the whole thing ironic? See where I'm going? TRY IT!
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk4ODQxNzE4N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjY3MjUzOA@@._V1._SY317_CR0,0,214,317_.jpg
ReplyDelete"The House I live In," is a documentary that interrogates US criminal Justice, especially drug policy and the "war on drugs." I have been hoping for some time to find an avenue to connect our ecocritical approach to the prison-industrial complex. How could mass-incarceration and the vast amount of prisons in this country not be an environmental issue. The title of the film spells it out perfectly. The root eco comes from the greek oikos which literally means house. The house I live in is eco-logical to a tee. What sort of environmentalisms could come out of the prison-industrial complex's entry into popular media? While the oppositional binaries remain—nature/culture, country/city, pure/defiled, connected/alienated, free/unfree, samaritan/criminal—it may not be possible to make issues such as racially driven drug policy and enforcement, and the incarceration of 2.3 million americans into the discussion of environmental justice. “Nature” may be holding us back from opening the environmental/ecocritical conversation up to some really fucked up issues—like laws that make crack 10 times more criminally punishable than powder cocaine, which are then enforced within predominantly African-American communities. Does the disproportionate presence of police force enforcing bogus laws constitute an environmental issue? Well it certainly creates the conditions for a radically different experience of one's surroundings than the lack of such force within rich white neighborhoods.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME THIS IS BRILLIANT!
ReplyDeleteSammy
ReplyDeletehttp://graceriley265.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/jen-aniston-ad1.jpg
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/lifestyle/2008-01/11/content_6387751.htm
Straight from the website, Glaceau the subsidiary company of Coca-Cola that distributes smartwater states, "smartwater is inspired by the way ma nature makes water, known as the hydrologic cycle... heres where we come in: we stimulate the whole process (minus the pollutants, of course) by vapor distilling smartwater, making every drop as pure as that very first drop of rain. if thats not smart enough, we then one-up ma nature by adding in electrolytes for faster hydration. if it all sounds like genius, it is, were water scientists (but we like to think of ourselves as artists.)
Tom Brady, star football player who is a three-time superbowl champion, is getting out of a helicopter on a football field sporting Glacier water. Since when is water smart, and what does this mean. The idea of something that is crucial to our survival like water being viewed as smart/dumb is something that is really mind blowing to me. Not only is this water smart, but it is being drank by a fit, attractive strong man that is traveling by a helicopter. To me this is suggesting that if you are young and successful then you probably would drink smartwater because that is what you should do. The same goes for Jenifer Aniston, who is well manicured with only a towel on next to the caption that says, “my secret revealed.” This beautiful women who is successful and a symbol for sex is saying drink smart water so why shouldn’t we. In the case of both of these smartwater ads gender and classes expectations are being reinforced in regards to drinking water, which is something that all human no matter their background, class, race, or gender deserves the right to.
http://youtu.be/10sv3tUeJqM
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10sv3tUeJqM
Same video two different links incase one or the other doesnt work. This is a very creepy and stange video but I think it fits the idea of what Sturgeon means by Intersectional Approach to nature...we cant ignore the history of man's doing, technologically, socially, economically, etc - and we must consider how they play into natures identity now, and also consider what we can do to these things to help change everything as a whole.
Here is more of what I wrote just upon my readings as well:
ReplyDeleteThe intro to this book has me really intrigued. I love Noel Sturgeons writing style and the ways in which she has set her book up in general, I think she did a wonderful job of organizing the book in a presentable and digestible way. At first I felt like it was going to be too much information coming at me all at once but, then she slowed down the pace and made the read an easy one to follow – while still getting some very new and powerful points across. My interests in her book revolve around her ideas about a green community being a community for the rich, and a toxic community being a community for the poor – which she claims is the road which we are on right now. I completely agree with her statement here and wonder, what can we do about the ‘more money, more problems’ situation? I also think it is very interesting how she asks us to cancel out all discourse and tropes of environmentalism, as they do not help our understanding of environmental issues, they merely hinder them – this is a warning we have seen throughout a lot of our readings so far, and she continues to remind us so.
She offers a wonderful idea of the Intersectional Approach, which is actually a scientific approach found mostly in Psychology and Sociology, so I instantly found interest in how this approach might connect beneficially to the environment. She argues that inequalities of race, gender, sexuality, class, and nation all connect to environmental problems, and that we must also address these issues if we want to solve environmental problems. She believes that the solutions to environmental problems are solutions that will also require solutions to political and social inequality – and from that I can’t help but ask myself…. Are we looking for the ‘perfect’ green world? She is emphasizing that in order to solve environmental issues we must also work to solve all other issues of social and political problems, which in fact is asking for some sense of peace, and some aspect of perfection – what she could classify as Utopian, except that the Utopian element doesn’t just benefit those that can afford it, but benefits all….that is a REAL Utopia indeed. But, Utopia is ‘that which is not yet attainable’ – both through the efforts of the imagination and logic, but also physically. It is the land that does not exist.
Her linkage of specific types of people, mainly subordinates, is another theme that has continuously arisen in our readings, and I must say that to create a list of only 6 types of people, including animals, that are related to the degradation and overexploitation of the environment, as she says, is almost ignorance as bliss….because in retrospect we are all affected, if we weren’t, then those that aren’t should be well on their way to solving the problem already. One other thing that I found controversial is her ways in which she connected women to nature. She claims that women do most agricultural work, which I find to be highly incorrect. As of late, most landscaping companies and farming companies are ran and worked by ‘rugged’ men, women stick to the more ‘domestic’ side of things, which she also does claim and I do agree but, there is much more crossover here than I think she is allowing a hand to be lent to. With that said – this book is great, and I may not agree entirely with all of her opinions, and may also see that adding Intersectional Approaches to the equation is like adding multiple layers back onto a fully peeled onion – she might be on to something here.
http://www.adsora.com/cars/subaru-impreza-ad-campaign
ReplyDeleteSubaru seems to have a history of coopting environmental tropes and utilizing them with commercial intent. These particular Subaru commercials portray an individual, naked in a jungle scene carrying a child, in one a man, the other a woman. Big ups to Subaru for gender equality, yet the position of the child in each shot belies a gender-specific orientation. While both are stooped to accentuate their primeval status, the women carries the child on her back while the man carries the child with one arm slung below but away from his chest. The traditional, that is indigenously-stereotyped, female carries a child on her back while the man adopts a carrying pose that would be hard to uphold for any great period of time, though both seem untenable in reality. The message “Protecting Who you Love is a Primitive Instinct” is echoed throughout the advertisement, from the forward sloping faces and upward focused eyes that accentuate the brow, to the stooped stature, the rainforest scenario, to a lack of the trappings of modern civilization (clothing). Who gets left out when protecting the ones you love is a natural instinct, those that don’t protect their loved ones, those that don’t have “loved” ones? Are these people then unnatural? Not to worry if this ad makes you feel unnatural you can feel natural again by purchasing a Subaru Impreza XV® with all its safety features. Don’t worry that automobiles themselves have high mortality rates. The add goes on to say that the Subaru Impreza XV® has “Subaru exclusive safety,” what should we think of the co-occurrence of these mottos? That the level of safety that one has with a Subaru is a natural instinct and that anything less, or even anything else, would be unnatural is one presumption we could make. On top of the naturalization of love, safety and the Subaru Impreza XV®, these pictures look like a northern forest, one where lack of clothes would cause some discomfort. In light of this the area around them seems especially docile and there is nothing in the ad beyond the human adult, child, car and vegetation. The adults in the ads have no body hair and their hair is fairly well kept as well, something that would not benefit nude inhabitants of uncomfortable climes. In naturalizing the natural instinct towards safety Subaru has created a variety of inconsistencies between the characters and even the more egregious stereotypes.