Agency: the Power to Act

Naomi Klein and Jane Juffer have some great points about the economy, brands, and stereotypes. They also bring up very interesting, debatable topics; however, even if we agree with everything they say, how do we help to stop things such as child labor or horrible working conditions in third-world countries? To be honest, in some ways the situation seems hopeless. I am not saying that there is no hope—only that sometimes it can seem this way.

A lot of the power to change things lies at a level us “normal citizens” do not have complete or easy access to. I do not own a corporation, so it seems hard for me to dictate their actions. However, as many may have heard before, there is power in numbers. In some ways, I like to think of Juffer and Klein’s suggestions through the ‘pay it forward’ theory. Sure it starts small, but it also grows quickly. Before we know it we have started to change something. It may be small, or it may be only a single corporation that we change, but the fact is that we did change it. People are able to make a difference.

So what’s the first step? Honestly, I’m not sure. But I would say a good guess is to be informed. Information in the right hands can be power.

I also think one of the important things Klein mentions is that the brands need us. Not the other way around. The brand’s goal is to appeal to as many people as possible. They want to appeal to us. This also creates a unique paradox, because when you think about it many people talk about trying to take away the power of the corporation (or changing their under-handed dealings in other countries); however, these same corporations have given us power. We may feel helpless, yet the few abilities we have come directly from those corporations whose desire is to please us. What I think Naomi Klein is saying then is that people could (and should?) easily attempt to use this to their advantage the best they can.

Even though the problem may indeed be larger than just the corporations (it is implied that the government laws and regulations do not cover certain areas they should to prevent bad labor conditions and such), I agree with Klein’s argument that sometimes we must start out small. Changing the very fabric of certain government laws seems an extremely daunting task for any group of people; however, by starting with smaller things—such as a single corporation—people could gradually work their way up to accomplish a larger goal in the end.

And yet… there is still a double standard. Other companies swoop in after another’s downfall and claim to be better; yet the same thing is happening in the sweatshops they employ. So does this mean we are forced to look at the bigger picture? Is moving step by step effective in these situations? How can we tell? But if we focus on the bigger picture instead, it is hard not to feel helpless.

Reaching out to others with the same viewpoint, and staying informed seems like a good plan. After all—even if you move slowly, step-by-step it will still lead you in the right direction and you will eventually reach your destination.

Stereotypes & Perceptions

Jane Juffer brings up a very interesting argument in her novel, Single Mother, about the specific roles a mother plays in raising a son. Many who would argue against Juffer claim that the son needs a male role model in his life—if the boy does not have this, critics are afraid he could develop some sort of “Oedipal complex” or (possibly worse in their eyes?) grow up to be “too feminine.”

However, what is “too feminine”? What is just plain “feminine”? Doesn’t society determine what is feminine and what is masculine in the first place? These gender roles have been assigned years ago, and today they invade culture so much that they have become natural—“the norm.” The ‘inherent meaning’ of feminine does not exist outside of the contexts created by society. We are led to believe from a young age that this ideology of men being masculine and women being feminine is natural. Yet the whole conception that males and females must act different is a societal construction. Many people seem to argue that simply because males and females have physical differences, they must also act in entirely different manners. While of course these differences should not be entirely ignored, they should also not be completely separated.

This argument of differences also relates to the chapter we read recently in The Theory Toolbox about the influences things such as gender or status can have on one’s perception of the world (certain events or ‘signifiers’). However, could it be that these elements only affect our view because society tells us that they must? Or does coming from a certain part of town truly affect how you look at the world? In a way, each of these arguments seems to hold some truth.

For example, in some ways females could tend to view themselves in a certain light—somehow relating their ‘skills’ to things such as cooking, family values, etc (whether they excel at these ‘skills’ or not). But many of these ‘skills’ are a societal construction in the first place. Granted, these days, gender “equality” is becoming much more prevalent and less of an issue, but there are always small things that can be changed. Also I am not claiming that males don’t have to deal with stereotypes, as many can attest that they do. In fact, there seems to be no escape from the stereotype no matter where you come from or how you live. These stereotype perceptions are what seem to create the need to see things “differently.”

A question I pose to you then is this: do you think that everything we perceive is affected by outside influences? Or is there anything inherent within an individual that causes them to see things in a certain way?

Brands, Signifiers, & Single Mothers

While at first none of these things appear to be related, they are more closely linked than one might think. Both “brand” and “single mother” are signifiers themselves. In the case of each there are multiple aspects that go into the definition or meaning of the words. Of course, there is no single signified that corresponds directly to either of these phrases; instead, we get connotations, multiple meanings, and differing opinions depending on any given context.

Originally, many people seem to associate brand names with a “high-quality” product, an expensive good, etc. However, Naomi Klein encourages her readers to question this original perception of the brand as it leeks into previously safe spaces such as schools. It seems, then, that there are no longer any spaces where we can hide from advertising. Maybe eventually the only way to avoid it is to close our eyes, plug our ears, and so forth. Yet, as I spoke of in my earlier blog, can we really blame all the large companies? Well certainly yes a portion of the blame rests on their shoulders—but doesn’t some of the blame also fall on us consumers for letting things go this far? Klein addresses this issue in her book a bit when she refers to teachers and community members of schools. It is true that each person has a busy life and may not realize what is going on until it is too late. But then isn’t it our job to become informed of such things so that they will not slip past us? The brand has began to signify much more than it originally intended, and is so completely ingrained in our culture that many don’t give it a second thought. For example: have you ever asked someone to pass you a Kleenex? A “Kleenex” is not an object. Kleenex is a brand—yet the concept of it has become embedded with the name. Therefore we have come to equate the signifier (a brand) with it’s signified (the object).

Likewise, the signifier “single mother” has also come to be equated with its signified as being intrinsically related. In her novel, Juffer indirectly addresses stereotypes of single mothers and attempts to demystify the common portrayal of the single mother. Many people associate the phrase (single mother) with certain connotations and meanings that in the end seem to be no more than simple stereotypes. However, as Juffer clearly points out, there are many arguments as to what exactly constitutes being a single mother. It is one thing to begin to presuppose the signifier of an object onto the object—but what about when the signified is not an object but a person? One could not possibly fully describe the complexity of people in one sitting. So how can we say that a person is equated with a single signifier or signified?

These assumptions lead to stereotypes as well as more assumptions. The only way to avoid such things then seems to be education. We must constantly be learning of the world around us and do our best to prevent such stereotypes and presumptions. We must never forget that nothing has intrinsic meaning—in fact, we are the ones who give meaning in the first place.