Ethnography: Defining Radical

I would like to preface this ethnography by acknowledging the great fortune I had in my observational period. While the situations I observed may not be completely radical, I must argue that the circumstances within one particular relationship mentioned were not ordinary. I am grateful to spend my time with such a colorful group of characters. Without them I would not have been able to see what I saw, so special thanks goes out to my merry band of miscreants.

This ethnography seeks to compare radical and normal types of romance. I observed relationships at a college party in an apartment near the California State University, Northridge campus. I did not tell anyone that I was observing them for an ethnography. The names of the observed have been changed to conceal their identities.

The apartment is across the street from the university on the west side. It is a one bedroom shared by two women who we will call “Beth” and “Gwyn.” I know Beth well and I am fond of Gwyn. The apartment has a spacious living area and a bar, both perfect for the gatherings that they host about twice a week. These “kick-backs”, as they are called, usually consist of about ten to twelve people at one point in time (people shuffle in and out throughout the night). There are about three regular attendees, excluding Beth and Gwyn. I am one of these regulars, and we will refer to the other two as “Viv” and “Alexis”. Most new-comers are people that Beth and Gwyn know through CSUN’s film department (they are both CTVA majors) or other friends who bring their own friends. There is always someone new at their apartment to talk to and it is rare that you will see the same person twice. This is typical of gatherings of college students from a large university such as ours.

My hours of observation were from 8:00 PM to 12:00 AM on September 10, 2010. People were drinking scotch and listening to an alternative music playlist on someone’s iPod. The mood was very mellow, as is typical of Beth and Gwyn’s parties. They note to each guest as they arrive- after asking them to take their shoes off so they do not dirty the carpet- to keep their voices down and that, if they want to put music on, to make sure that it is not loud enough to disturb their neighbors.
Beth has a long-distance boyfriend, “Charlie”, who she is constantly text messaging. She keeps up a conversation with him via text throughout the entirety of my observation. While I do not know what is being said between them, every two minutes or so Beth’s phone will vibrate, she will look at it, smile and reply. Beth shares that it is very rare for her and Charlie to talk on the phone and that, when one of them calls the other, they assume something is wrong.

Viv has a different set of circumstances. Viv is pansexual, meaning she is attracted to people for who they are regardless of their gender identity or sex, and the more she drinks throughout the evening the more she shares with us. Viv tells us about a woman she has feelings for named “Meg”. At a small get-together, it is inevitable that people will start talking about relationships. Viv talks to other guests about Meg and debates whether the feelings she has for her are mutual.

Enter Kim, Mona and Tom. Kim and Mona are friends with Beth. They have been dating for about six months. Mona has an apartment closer to school and Kim has practically been living there since they have been dating. Kim and Mona do not come in holding hands or even smiling. They greet everyone that they know and introduce themselves to others. Tom follows close behind Kim, not saying much and nodding hello to everyone. Tom met Kim a week or two prior to this meeting and they have seen each other frequently ever since. Tom and Mona do not talk to each other. Instead, Mona goes in one direction and Kim in another, each talking to people that they know. Tom follows Kim, but does not stand close enough to her to hear her conversation. I overhear Kim telling someone in a hushed voice that Tom kissed her the other day and that Mona does not know about it. Kim has an ambiguous sexual identity and is very vocal about people, both male and female, that she finds attractive. Tom is also very vocal about being a transgendered man, meaning that he is biologically female and is transitioning into a man. Tom was talking to another transgendered party guest about being “pre-T”, meaning he has yet to start taking testosterone and other male hormones in order to transition, and about binding his chest every day.

                       A love triangle of sorts. Thought I'd break up the text with a visual.


It may take some work to decipher which of the relationships I observed are radical and which are normative because of the genders of the players in each of them. From what I have observed, though, “normal” does not equal “heterosexual” and “radical” is not equivalent to “queer”.
Beth and Charlie, for instance, are a heterosexual couple that are keeping up a long-distance relationship. While this may not be the most convenient relationship, it is something that many people attempt. Most couples that go off to college will either break up or attempt a long-distance relationship. The only thing that could be interpreted as radical may be the fact that Beth and Charlie do not speak on the phone, says this observer.

In Chris Barker’s book Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, he defines social identity as, “the expectation and opinions that others have of us.” (215) Viv and her relation to Meg, while not heterosexual, still adheres to a formula of a homosexual relationship. This being the year 2010 and this being Los Angeles County, I am going to take the liberty to say that a homosexual relationship is in itself not radical. Viv, seeking a lesbian relationship with Meg, expects each of them to have equal roles in their potential relationship and does not expect one of them to take a more masculine role and the other a more feminine role. Whether this romance is radical or normal depends on your idea of a homosexual relationship.
In general, we can say that there are two different relationship styles within the queer community. One style would be the previously stated one of equal roles in a relationship, and the other being adherence to a more heterosexist ideal of a “male” and “female”, despite each partner being of the same sex. This is where the sub-identities of “butch” and “femme” in the lesbian community come from. We can see the same in the gay male community with men who are extremely flamboyant compared others who are not.

In the case of Kim, Mona and Tom, this heterosexist formulation is the basis of their whole relationship. Tom is a transgendered man; the foundation of his identity is in a societal definition of what it means to be a man. Of course his identity is also wound up in feeling uncomfortable in the body he was born in, but he feels comfortable doing what is prescribed behavior for a man. Barker states that, “…it is a sociological truism that we are born into a world that pre-exists us.” (218) Tom’s understanding of what it means to be a man is what he has grown up seeing in the media and in real life. He uses these learned habits in his relation to Kim, asserting himself, being the pursuer and treating her, “like a lady”. Tom treats Mona as competition for Kim’s attention, but does not treat her as though they are both vying for her affection in the same way. Tom treats Mona as though she is the disapproving best friend of his love interest in a romantic comedy, instead of someone that Kim has feelings for.

Kim’s action in her sordid state of affairs may be considered radical as well. Tom kissed Kim and disregarded the fact that Kim was dating Mona. When this usually happens, the girl in the relationship lets their pursuer know that they have gone too far and that it would not be appropriate to see them any longer. Kim has not done that. Instead, she does not want her relationship with Tom to change and still spends as much time with him as she would had he not kissed her, effectively leading Tom on. There is not denying that Kim is attracted to Tom (having described him as, “hotter than all hell”) and while she does not want Mona to get hurt, she does like the attention that Tom gives her. Kim, in comparison to Michael Douglas’s character in the 1987 film Fatal Attraction, may be landing herself in hot water (like a certain pet bunny I may mention) but does not seek Tom the way that Michael Douglas sought out Glenn Close. Her flirtation is pathological and, while hurting others may not be her intention, it is inevitable.

Every romance, even the most mundane, has a tinge of radicalism to it. There are a number of circumstances that could qualify it as such depending on who the observer is. Because of my background, I do not see homosexual relationships as radical. Another viewer may not see the potential for polyamory radical the way that I might. Our definitions of radical versus normative romances are based in our interpretation of language and our understanding of the pre-existent culture around us.


Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2009. Print.

Douglas, Michael, perf. Fatal Attraction. Paramount, 1987. Film

Feelin' all the time like a cat on a hot tin roof

I was part of the 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof' presentation group. I'm proud of our group, particularly the other three members that contributed the most, because for not having much time to get together I think we pulled off our presentation well. Also, we were the first group to go. C'mon, that's a lot of pressure.

I always opt to work on my own for projects simply because working with other people can be difficult. This time was no exception. My group members were not hard to work with by any means, but finding a time when six full-time college students are all available is near impossible. But, again, I think we did a good job given the time we had to prepare and the number of times we were able to meet. I also think we had interesting insights and opinions on the text that helped to structure our discussion.

I contributed my being at every group meeting (more than some of my group members can say) and I also helped contribute to the dialogue of our 'Kerry Springer' show script. I helped in structuring the talking points we presented to the class on the text like everyone else. I also played the role of Maggie when the 'Hot Tin Roof' cast visited the 'Kerry Springer' show.

Paul Newman is what we in the academic world call, "a hot piece of somethin'."

Simone de Beauvoir and 'Jerry Maguire': Two Names I Never Thought I Would Put in the Same Sentence

Simone de Beauvoir is my girl.

I've always enjoyed her writing on "woman as other," but it always saddened me because, while women have certainly made progress, there is still so much that has yet to change. Let's take Jerry Maguire for instance.

Jerry Maguire, the title character of the 1996 Tom Cruise movie, has two love interests. The first being his fiance, Avery, portrayed by Kelly Preston. Both Jerry and Avery are career-oriented and hard working. The film constructs Avery as a tough-as-nails kind of woman, perhaps a little more rash than most "modern" women, she has some personality traits that are less than appealing regardless of gender, including narcissism and a lack of compassion. She is sexy and willing but won't be pushed around and has no sense of remorse.

The other woman in Jerry's life, the one he ultimately ends up with, is Renee Zellweger's Dorothy, Jerry's assistant with a pathetic longing for her employer. Dorothy is very passive and is at Jerry's beckoned call, even leaving her job to follow Jerry after he gets fired. Through movie magic, Jerry realizes that he is in love with the woman that... was invisible to him before he realized she was so malleable? Yep. That's what happens.

If the modern woman is comprised of both masculine and feminine qualities, then perhaps these characters are written by a man who is scared of this. Avery is monstrous compared to the docile Dorothy. They are each extremes of the personality type they are representing. de Beauvoir says that for women, "to decline to be the Other, to refuse to be a party to the deal- this would be for women to renounce all the advantages conferred upon them by their alliance with the superior caste." Jerry Maguire reaffirms this. Avery, the goal-oriented, independent woman ends up alone because she refuses to be a supplement to Jerry.While Dorothy, who waits on his hand and foot is rewarded because she sacrificed having a life of her own in order to get the attention of a man.

de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex, Woman as Other.1949. Print.

Maybe they're just mismatched? Some guys dig insensitive women.

"I'm Not There"

"I'm not there," happens to be the words out of the mouth of the humble narrator of American Psycho, the 2000 film adapted from the Bret Easton Ellis novel of the same title.

Patrick Bateman, a perfect picture of yuppie greed, has layers of identity hidden behind an empty persona. A sleek Wall Street player on the outside, Patrick is secretly consumed by a need for carnage. In the beginning of his narration he explains that he is not Patrick Bateman and that there is no Patrick Bateman, that he is simply a compilation of what other people see and the products he buys.

In class, we were asked what has created Patrick Bateman? And, for that matter, what has created any of us? Someone volunteered that what makes us is language. I can absolutely agree that this is a starting point. We start with a language and then build upon it, separating everyone into categories so that it is easier for our minds to process. We create categories so that people know what to do and what not to do, somewhat losing autonomy. Patrick Bateman is an assortment of material, a hollow being draped in Armani. He wants what others in the category want and does what others in his category do.

That is not to say that anyone who fights against materialism or gender binaries has a better concept of who they are. They too are defined by what they don't own and what they don't believe in, which is just as constricting.

Patrick Bateman, however, is very aware that he is nothing apart from his things. He goes so far as to say that there is no Patrick Bateman. Is there no Patrick Bateman? Or are our definitions different? If everyone is made up of what we make them, then no one is anyone. If, though, Patrick Bateman just happens to be the name of one of countless drones, then there is a Patrick Bateman, he just happens to be made of raw material.

When Patrick said that he was, "not there" it reminded me of the Todd Haynes's 2007 Bob Dylan biopic, I'm Not There. From my experience, you have to know a lot about Bob Dylan in order to fully appreciate the movie, but if you know the slightest bit about Dylan you know that he is considered an original, a visionary and a "man who worked for no man." As an artist who was (and still is, though he's slowed down in later years) always reinventing himself, Dylan knew that he was whatever the people made him out to be, and knew that who he was changed on a daily basis. Because of all of these factors, you can never know who you really are. Patrick Bateman, a fictional character, and Bob Dylan, a real person, are similar in that neither of them exist to others the way they exist to themselves, even questioning their existence altogether.

Here is the trailer for I'm Not There. If you're a Dylan fan, it's a great film. Todd Haynes does a wonderful job (and his DVD commentary is some of the best I've ever heard). I implore you to at least watch the Cate Blanchett scenes. Her performance is fantastic.

Fun fact: Christian Bale stars in both I'm Not There and American Psycho.