It seems only appropriate to write this essay by taking the idea of non-independence of ideas and running with it. To begin with, here's the basic message: nothing, besides pure thought, stands on its own. Analysis of anything outside its culture is asking a fish to survive outside its aquarium. It just can't be done. This is as true for those meaningless collections of phonemes we call words as it is for the complicated regime of diets and exercise that we need to solve our weight problems. Or as true as it is for the idea that we have "weight problems."
This is such a simple idea that it can seem crazy that people don't get it. Nothing is independent. Take nothing for granted, either. If you wear Nikes or saris, that's culturally dependant. Whether you consider dogs a household pet or just another shishkabob ingredient depends on where your grandparents were born. The fact that you speak Arabic or English determines how you think, and that language choice has to do with your upbringing.
This is a dangerous idea. Partly, it's dangerous because it's destructive. If mathematicians all had to start by deriving and proving 1 + 1 = 2, they'd never get onto proving the four-color map theory. Similarly, if people had to spend all their time justifying what they think and why they think it, they wouldn't be able to move to any really useful thoughts. But it's important to at least understand that this is true. Even if you don't/can't question all of reality, at least know that it is possible to do so. Too many people don't know this. And it's very easy to move from "Some things can not be questioned" to "Everything can not be questioned".
This isn't quite where we're at in society today. Ideas do move into our society, and some of them stick around. The relation of general society to these ideas that eventually succeed can come in one of three forms: ignorance, denial, or acceptance. Usually, the society passes through all three in order before the idea becomes a working part in the machine.
The quickest example is gender roles. We all know they change. There was a time, after all, when women didn't drive trucks. For that matter, there are people old enough to remember when women couldn't vote. But it would be laughable to pretend that the genders have no strictly defined roles in society anymore. Society is at a middle ground of some sort. Its members are somewhere one of the three positions I mentioned above. Some people are still ignorant. A shocking amount, in fact. Mostly these are people who live in the stricter Muslim countries, or in certain parts of China, but they even exist in the US. In general, ignorance of the possibility of changing gender roles is confined to those parts that do not have general contact with "the rest of the world," and those parts are fading fast.
On the other hand, there are even less places where the idea is fully accepted. These places are almost exclusively subsections of "first-world" nations, and even then, often only in certain parts of certain universities, or other bastions of liberal thought. The vast majority of people are, I would say, in the "denial" category. They understand that certain people wish to change traditional gender roles. They might know some of the people in question. But the deniers don't accept the idea. This might stem from a simple fear of change: what worked should keep working, and don't rock the boat. This might stem from a fear of loss of privilege: misguidedly or not, they think the world is a zero-sum game, and, misguidedly or not, they think they're doing better now. There are a thousand reasons. Similarly, there are a thousand ways that their denial makes itself known.
It could be jokes that, in their own small way, reinforce stereotypes. Or actual physical punishment of those who choose to break the line. But it is all some form of denial of the concept that genders can change/be changed.
The important thing to keep in mind as you read this is that even this idea must obey its own rules. Just as "sexist" jokes in and of themselves have no meaning, the previous example has no meaning. The idea that the response of an entire society can be broken down into one of three neat categories is too simple. It has some elements of truth, but even those stem mainly from the larger idea which it is derived from and attached to.
To demonstrate this, take the concept of men in drag being funny. Clearly, this is easily fit in as an example of denial of change in gender roles. The semi-recent movie with Wesley Snipes and other men, all in dresses, did little to break down the walls between the genders. They were allowed to wear the skirts, but only if they agreed to make it silly. Silly things are not dangerous, and they are not models for you to live your life around. The movie was an implicit recognition that there are people who really do cross-dress, but it was hardly an acceptance of the fact as normal. It was denial, acknowledging the existence of the concept at the same time you stigmatize the concept.
However, that's not a whole analysis. Cross-dressing is not only a minority element in Hollywood comedies, but it's also an entire subculture of society. There are real people who really cross-dress, and it's really funny. And this funny is different from Wesley Snipes being funny. This funny is subversive funny. It does break down the gender roles and make them more acceptable. The same idea is pushing in two different directions, all depending on the culture it is plugged into.
Of course, I can't really say this. Camp drag and Snipes drag don't really do anything different. They are what they are. Unless you choose to make them part of a larger machine, they make no sense. But there are no absolutes, and I take back the words I just wrote. They have meanings outside what they plug into, and so they do indeed do different things. They have different meanings because they are derived from different places, and so they carry different cultures along. This is divorced from what you choose to plug them in to. You can see them any way you want, but as long as you are aware of it, you have to deal with the fact that one is a child of Hollywood, and one is not. These are intrinsic to the ideas. So we revise the original idea.
The first conceptualization was that nothing is independent. Which is true. But it also was that nothing is not dependant. Which is untrue. Which just proves the foolishness of a binary system. A better thing to say is that concepts do need to be plugged in to work, but you can't plug them into a system and not expect both plugs and plugees to be unchanged afterwards. And to illustrate that, we turn to cyberspace.
Probably the thing I'm most surprised that people don't understand about the internet is how ordinary it is. The people there are really not that much different than anywhere else. There is a minimum standard of education and income, fine, but they are surprisingly low. The people there are neither geeks nor nerds, in general. There is probably a higher percentage of people who are non-standard, but that's a relative measure. Most people are what we would consider "normal" if we met them on the street.
Culturally, it's very American. The language of choice is English. The world-wide web has roughly the same content-to-ads ratio as television. You have the usual assortment of con artists, moral crusaders, annoying people, and insurance agents. So why are people so afraid of it?
And yes, "afraid" is the right word. Fear is all the bills in congress to limit freedom of speech on the internet. Fear is people who want to keep kids off the internet, and force them to look up the stuff in their public libraries. Fear is even the Cathy comic where she meets a guy on the internet. Again, we're in the "denial" stage.
I think people are afraid of the internet because of its potential. It does, after all, have the potential to do great things. On the internet, you can talk to people from other countries, other cultures, and interact with them purely on a mind-to-mind basis. Anyone can. So why don't we?
Basalmo mentions that it's generally far more the case that "internet culture" is similar to "real culture" than it is different. Gender- and race- based beliefs are alive and well. Even the myth that "hacker culture" lets in everyone is just that. But let's not overgeneralize here. Change happens.
Internet culture is, as it were, a "pidgin culture". It's a slapped-together mix of a whole bunch of ideas and ideals. A common language for different cultures to speak. True, much of the ingredients thrown into the pot are good ol' American values. But not all of it. And so we create something which is, if not greater, at least different, than the sum of its parts. There are many places to look to see the internet is different than America. Heck, even the advertisers know this: the internet is better-educated, wealthier, younger, than America. It's more culturally diverse in the same way that the zoo brings different species together. Politically, it's not as right wing as America, or it's far more right wing, depending on if you're talking gay rights or gun rights. Part of the danger of the internet is that it brings cultures together and threatens to make something from the joining. If nothing else, internet culture is being formed from a slightly new perspective, and it's not going to be the same as anything that came before it. But wait, there's more.
There is also cyborg fear, and we can't forget this. It's odd that it exists, so it's interesting that it exists. The Terminator, after all, has always been around. We just used to call it "the scissors," or even earlier, "the flint knife." But there's no connection made there. This problem will be a little easier to deal with. It's just going to take time. Back in the olden days, when cars got introduced, people had problems with them. It was probably the same way when someone said "Hey, we could try cooking this meat.." It will probably be the same way when someone introduces the jet-pack, just like the Jetson family has.
Now, Ayn Rand would argue that these sort of new ideas get hushed up and hidden away again, because they're so revolutionary. But she would be incorrect. Ideas don't get hushed up. They worm their way into the culture, and stay until they either die on their own or get accepted. In the mean time, they're in the waiting-room of denial. Eventually everyone will own a digital watch, and go in for RK eye surgery, and probably have computers directing their cars. Technology has a way of getting stuck in our lives and not leaving til we're transformed. Technology is as close as we get to magic in these days.
Plastic surgery, then, would be black magic. If you remember The Little Mermaid, that's what the main character really wanted: plastic surgery. Even in the sanitized-for-kids Disney version, she still went to a sorceress to get the body alterations done. And she still had to give up something to pay for it; in this case, her voice. Even someone who doesn't want to deconstruct these sort of flicks must be wincing by now. She's got to give up her voice (and so her personality) in order to fit the ideal body image so she can win the prince? C'mon. This is the 90s, people.
But if this is the 90s, and we don't do that sort of thing anymore, and nobody makes people do anything to their bodies anymore, then why are we still doing it? Pidgin culture, again. Body modification means separation from the body. The body you're born with no longer defines who you are forever. It's not even necessarily any part of who you are, if you're rich enough to change things. And so in the gap that is created, a new culture arises. The "problem" with this new culture, from a gender-analysis perspective, is that it's too much like the old one. Although the physical limitations of people (by which I mean women) being defined by their bodies was no longer necessary, the cultural definition that went along with it remained. All the advent of plastic surgery meant is that there's now even higher standards for people's bodies, and the bodies become even more important. And since you can't get a "good enough" body without surgery, and that equates to money, then all we've done is gone back to the tired, old, ever-present class stratification deal.
Now let's do that again. This time, without putting plastic surgery into the confused gender system we have now. Is there anything wrong with plastic surgery? Yes, granted, it can be dangerous. Not enough to disqualify it; people do lots of foolish things. It may mean forcing yourself to fit a stupid cultural stereotype of beauty; true, but it doesn't have to. This sub-issue can spin either way; plastic surgery can either support the reigning cultural beauty standards or undermine them.
Finally, there's always the argument that "it's just not natural." This is perhaps the most common. You hear this from women (and men, too, but men generally aren't allowed to make the same sort of physical analyses of women that women are) in all walks of life. Discuss Penthouse or Baywatch or beer commercials, and I guarantee someone will say "and you know those breasts aren't natural." And there is always the assumption that we all know what "natural" means.
False teeth aren't natural. The earring is not a natural thing. Neither is the appendix. Is it natural if we change our brains to learn to ride a bike? Is it natural if we pierce our tongues? Are glasses natural? How about drinking-glasses? I don't think it's possible to draw a defining line between the Terminator and some guy with a pair of scissors. No, wait. It is possible. People do it all the time. Goodness knows Pat Buchanan is willing to tell us what natural means. Straight, white, missionary-position sex between two married people for the purposes of procreation is natural, and everything else isn't. The word "natural" does not describe the cultural norm, it defines it. Just the same way people say "Everyone knows" when what they really mean is "Everyone ought to know."
If you accept that cultures change, then how can you use the word "natural", except as a weapon? And it has always been a weapon. Saying something isn't natural is saying those who accept that thing are unnatural. It is another way of denying the idea. Of course, the bastion of unnaturalness has always been weird forms of sexuality.
The immediate idea from this is probably that sexuality must be very dangerous, then, or it wouldn't be treated as such a threat. Which may be true, I suppose. And this thought slides nicely into a discussion of S&M, which is interesting as much for how it really is as for the varied reactions that society has to it. And society does have some very weird reactions to it indeed. The initial reaction is generally mingled shock and horror. Sex is placed on a pedestal in this society in many ways, and S&M has a way of taking it off that pedestal and making it just something people do. Also, S&M is a dangerous reminder of the importance of context: pain is no longer always bad, and no-pain no longer always good. Pain is no longer always pain.
Note that this idea of mingled pleasure and pain is totally acceptable in certain other areas: sports, for instance. Nobody sees anything wrong with football players continuing to play with busted knees, even those people who get a little squeamish at the thought of nose pierces. Or boxing, which would be S&M if the contestants made sure to ask before each punch. And if it was acceptable to practice S&M.
The other aspect of S&M, practically indistinguishable from the first, is the power relationships it sets up. Practically indistinguishable from the first, I say, because pain and power have traditionally always went together. For so long has power been synonymous with the ability to inflict or not inflict pain that it's hard to say if it involves anything else. S&M, at first glance, has the same power relationships as the real world does. There's a dominant and a submissive, and one is in charge and the other one isn't. But that's not what you'd get from a more complete analysis. In fact, S&M is set up almost as a parody of real-world power.
As was mentioned in a couple of the essays we read, S&M bears many resemblances to the judicial/penal system. You've got your victim, your punisher, the exposure of the "criminal," etc. However, it's only a superficial resemblance. In most "real" S&M, contrary to common perception, the "victim" is not the victim. The dominator is not in charge. It's the bottom who is generally the one with the power to say "go" or "stop." Part of this is undoubtedly overcompensation; there's a real danger of the submissive getting hurt when the top goes too far if the submissive is not allowed to call all the shots.
The other real difference is that S&M has a fundamental unreality about it. Unlike the judicial system, S&M is mutually arranged and approved of. It's a game that gets stopped and started. Even when people choose to extend it into their entire everyday lives, it's still a choice to do so, and so it remains a role they are playing. It's even somewhat common to find people that play both roles, bottom and top. To find the equivalent in the judicial system would be odd, to say the least.
So far, much of the stuff I've discussed has been similar in that it's all "abnormal." Furthermore, it's abnormal in the sense that it is outside the mainstream culture. There's another way to be abnormal, too, which is to follow the guidelines of mainstream culture, but do it to such an extent than you become abnormal. Primarily, what I'm thinking of here are eating disorders. Anorexia is, of course, the classic example. There's nothing acultural about dieting, which is why anorexia is so hard to spot. How do you draw the line and say this much dieting is unhealthy, and this much isn't?
So it's the plastic surgery question all over again, and "what do people really want?" Clearly there are some people who are unhealthily underweight. There are people who are unhealthily overweight. It's odd how different we treat them, though. Being overweight is universally pathologized. It's bad to be overweight, no matter what reason. Underweight, however, is tricky. It seems to be the case that it's okay, even good, to be underweight, as long as it's natural. All those ultra-ultra-thin supermodels go out of their way to talk about how they don't do anything to get this thin. They just aren't hungry. Or they are, they just eat and eat and never put on pounds. It's as if they feel they have to justify being so thin.
Feeling the need to justify yourself isn't an odd reaction. I expect everyone does this, to a certain extent. American culture doesn't like overachievers. Underachieving is bad too, but the idols of American culture are those like Dagwood, who do what's asked of them and no more, and less if they can manage it. Or look at Dilbert, where the bosses are known by everyone to be just barely competent, but they're still in charge. With ideals like these, it's not surprising people talk about how there are no heros left. There's only plastic surgery.
The closing idea for dieting is to remember that these ideals don't come out of nowhere. Like everything else, they're highly culturally specific. Although it's a joke that the husband in Rose is Rose likes fat women, that was reality in the Renaissance. Furthermore, these images are built and rebuilt by us, mere humans. Body size fits into culture and modifies the socket it fits into. And whenever an image gets called up, it changes and is changed. Advertising does a lot to make certain body types "not ok." After all, if most people weren't imperfect, business couldn't sell us what we need to make ourselves perfect.
And this holds true with anything else, I guess. I do believe that corporations will eventually come around to the idea that everyone's ok, and there's no need to tell them otherwise. That will be the most-profitable course in the end, counting in all the societal trouble that will vanish. But the way there is going to be long and painful. New groups will appear and be martyred many times before their ideas take hold, because that too, is profitable. There are still people alive who remember when women couldn't vote.
So all I'm asking for is a little awareness. We can't deal with something unless we understand it. We all know this. So why don't people study their own culture? Who benefits from our ignorance? I don't know, but I know it's not me.