Plan for the Week

TO DO THIS WEEK:

• Transcribe audio for non a-spec focus group part 1
• Transcribe audio for non a-spec focus group part 2
• Code Heartstopper and Sex Education transcripts
• Code a-spec focus group transcript
• Watch Watchmen
• Watch Disclosure and Miss Representation
• Read The Abject Single

Reading (and documentary) of the Week

Back to reading things this week - finally sinking my teeth into an article I've wanted to look at for a while: The Abject Single: Exploring the Gendered Experience of Singleness in Britain by Ai-Ling Lai, Ming Lim, and Matthew Higgins - an article that looks at the experiences of single people in Britain from the perspective of marketing research

• "‘singleness’ is culturally pathologised as an ‘abject other’, a liminal state which renders the legitimation of the ‘single subject’ unintelligible." (p.2)
• "our findings reveal that the experience of singleness is structured along gendered lines: a statein which single women are ‘visibly’ subjected to the disciplinary power that produces their ‘abject’ status. While single men have seemingly averted the disciplinary gaze, on the other hand, we also show that their singleness remains tenuously tethered to the heteronormative framework" (p.2)
• "the experience of singleness is overshadowed by compulsory heteronormativity - an ideological framework that institutionalises heterosexuality as a ‘natural’ sexual preference" (p.3)
• "By prioritising the ‘family/couple’ as a valuable unit of consumption (O’Malley and Prothero 2007), marketers have silenced those voices whose relational practices fall outside of the heteronormative framework (Wilkes 1995)" (p.4)
• "Butler (1993) argues that the exclusionary matrix that privileges the heterosexual subject depends on ‘the production of a domain of abject beings, those who are not yet subject’ (p.xiii) and thus ‘do not appear properly gendered’ (p.xvii)." (p.5)
• "Those whose intimate lives do not conform to the heteronormative framework are subjected to economic, political and social sanctions, as exemplified by the fate of Eleanor Rigby, the spinster who died alone, childless and in poverty. Indeed, single individuals are often construed as deviant (Rich 1980; Sandfield and Percy 2003; Holden 2007), pathological (Reynolds and Wetherell 2003) and promiscuous (Gordon 1994). As Butler (1993) implies, the symbolic repercussion of assuming the abject position of singleness is that of ‘terror’ since such a position is culturally ‘unintelligible’ given the lack of symbolic resources that make possible the articulation of single experience." - sorry the fact that they chose to use the Beatles song Eleanor Rigbyto illustrate this point is so funny to me. I love academics. (p.5)
• KRISTEVA MENTION RAHHHHH "In Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, Kristeva (1982) explains that the ‘abject’ threatens the integrity of one’s clean and proper self (that of being opposed to I) and ‘disturbs identity, system, order’ (p.4). The ‘abject’ is therefore a site of horror because it beseeches and challenges the subject and possesses the potential to dissolve the boundaries that give the subject meaning and stability" - guys if I start red string board connecting this essay to the one about abjection in Angel I need someone to tranquilise me (p.6)
• "‘Abjection’ is therefore experienced as a liminal state of ‘the in-between, the ambiguous, the composite’ (Kristeva 1982, p.4). The ‘abject’ thus occupies the zone between ‘being and non-being’ (Tyler 2009) where it is neither a subject nor an object (Kristeva 1982)." (p.6)
• Oh god they're talking about the mirror stage let me outtttt I've already read so much 70s feminist writing and also Allison Bechdel's autobiographical graphic novel where she talks a lot about psychoanalysis. when will I be free from Lacan
• I (and seemingly the authors of this essay) appreciate Butler's critique of Kristeva's theory of abjection and how it relates to motherhood: "Such a narrative reifies motherhood as an ‘innate maternal instinct’ and is thus rendered compulsory for women. Developing a position with which we concur, Butler implies that the abjection of ‘singleness’ reflects the fantasy of a fearful heterosexist culture (1990) against the failure to sever the apron string of maternal dependency (Kristeva 1982)." Guys do you think Butler also hates psychoanalysis I like to believe they do <3 (p.8)
• Big ol chunky quote here: "Furthermore, Butler (1990) argues that the naturalisation of motherhood necessitates the cultivation of reproductive desires, which are institutionalised through heterosexual union and kinship. In other words, the regulatory norm of compulsory heterosexuality requires the propagation of bodies into discrete sexes with ‘natural’ heterosexual dispositions (Butler 1988). Underpinning this is the cultural imposition of exogamic heterosexuality, which mandates that sexual desires be directed towards the opposite sex, thus culminating in obligatory heterosexual marriage, a desire for procreation and the compulsion to establish a family (Rubin 1975). Singleness (alongside homosexuality) is deemed a violation of this exogamic arrangement" (p.8)
• "Not only is heterosexuality presented as an ‘innate’ sexual preference, it also masks a deeper stratum of meaning - i.e. a society where couples – and couples only – enact socially acceptable norms and practices." (p.8)
• "heterosexual affiliation becomes legitimised as an unquestionable way of being – for whom one’s ‘humanness’ as a gendered subject is rendered culturally intelligible and imaginable. At the same time, heteronormativity operates as a tacit exclusionary system by foreclosing the possibility of identifying with the abject ‘single’ – i.e. a position that is ‘unthinkable’ and ‘difficult to imagine’ (Butler 1988)." - THE POINT ABOUT HUMANNESS IS REALLY INTERESTING. Could connect to a LOT of a-spec scholarship and also a lot of what was said in the focus groups (p.8)
• "Heterosexuality is often celebrated through gift-giving rituals (Ingraham 1996; Sherry 1983) that valorise familial and romantic exchange of love (Belk and Coon 1993), dating experiences (Belk and Coon 1990), Valentine’s Day (Otnes et al. 1994), Thanksgiving (Wallendoft and Arnould 1991) and Christmas (Fischer and Arnold 1990)." (p.9)
• "Indeed, cultural rituals such as weddings (Otnes and Pleck 2003), engagement (Fram and Baron 2004) and baby showers (Fischer and Gainer 1993) are tacit forms of heterosexual celebration, marking the normative rite of passage from singleness to marriage and parenthood. Similarly, theories of family life cycle in consumer research (e.g. Wells and Gubar 1966; Murphy and Staples 1979) typically espouse the developmental model (Wilkes 1995), which construe singleness as a temporary/preparatory phase prior to marriage" something something chrononormativity (p.9)
• "marriage and parenthood are considered important milestones of adulthood in Western culture. Hence, individuals who successfully attain such milestones are legitimised as ‘moral’ citizens (Gordon 1994) - who are productive, family-centred and more importantly appropriately (hetero)gendered. Meanwhile, individuals who remain single are deemed ‘failed’ subjects since they have not traversed the normative rite of passage as culturally ‘expected’ (Sandfield and Percy 2003)." (p.10)
• ANOTHER CHUNKY OL QUOTE INCOMING: "Situated in this socio-political landscape, a woman who is unattached and childless raises tension (Gordon 1994) as her ‘singleness’ stands in contrast to the cultural construction of (p.12) feminine virtues: which connote ‘purity’, ‘piety’, ‘domesticity’ and ‘submissiveness’ (Holden 2007). Spinsters, along with the image of the ‘old maid’, emerged as pathological stereotypes in the 19th century to portray the undesirable state of ‘unmarriageable daughters, aunts or sisters’ (Gordon 1994), who were ‘left on the shelf’ due to their ‘unattractiveness’ (Holden 2007). These stereotypes are at odds with the phantasmatic ideal of womanhood, which render the spinster/old maid as ‘not quite woman’ (Butler 1993; Gordon 1994). The prospect of becoming a spinster/old maid therefore invokes ‘terror’ (Kristeva 1982) since women are unable to identify with this ‘abject’ position of singleness (Butler 1993) and thus feel compelled to seek fulfilment through marriage and motherhood (Byrne 2003)." (p.13) - reminds me of Tessler's research into gendered aromantic experiences, also general community discussions about feeling a disconnect from gender identity due to one's aromanticism - romantic partnership is such an ingrained part of how gender is constructed. Which reminds me is this essay going to bring up aromanticism like. At all?
• Alternate view: "Gordon (1994) argues that the stereotypes of the old maid/spinster are becoming obsolete as women gain greater financial independence" (p.13)
• A more modern stereotype of single women: "The ‘city-single’ provokes moral panic among social conservatives since it undermines male control over women’s sexuality. More importantly, the ‘city-single’ poses a danger to the institution of marriage by unravelling the fabric of the family unit. This inflames cultural imaginaries of single women as ‘femme (p.13) fatale’ and ‘female predator’ (Budgeon 2008) who are ‘promiscuous’, ‘selfish’ and ‘hedonistic’ (Gordon 1994)" (p.14)
• "There is however no direct equivalent to the abject stereotyping of male singleness. Bachelorhood is seen as a ‘desirable’ and ‘normative’ way of being for men (Budgeon 2008)." (p.14)
• "This sexual double standard exposes how gender inequality continues to shape the social regulation of single intimacies (Budgeon 2008; Holden 2007). Singleness is considered to be a ‘choice’ for the bachelor - who unlike the ‘old maid/spinster’ – retains the agency to shape his interpersonal life (Budgeon 2008)." (p.14)
• "However, Zajicek and Koski (2003) suggest that perpetual bachelorhood elicits suspicion as the unmarried state is deemed ‘unnatural’ (Budgeon 2008). According to Holden (2007), the cultural idealisation of motherhood meant that single men are left in a position of ‘either having to reject maternal and family ties or be seen as mothers’ boys who never grow up’ (p9)." (p.14)
• On their methodology for finding participants: "We did not intentionally exclude widows and gay/lesbian singles but the referral process did not yield any contacts" so I guess there's no hope for any a-spec participants rip - OKAY TO BE FAIR TO THEM I DID CHECK WHEN THIS WAS PUBLISHED AND IT WAS 2015. So a-spec identity was even less in the cultural mainstream than it is now lol (p.16)
• "the historical stigma of single parents (especially women) having a child ‘out of wedlock’ remains evident in the current economic recession: cultural stereotypes of ‘mothers on benefits,’ ‘welfare cheats’ and ‘scroungers’ are widely circulated in the UK media creating a ‘climate of fear’ among ‘unmarried parents’ (Ramesh 2012)." - connects very nicely to the more American 'welfare queen' stereotype I've discussed before (p.16)
• "Indeed, singleness is perceived to be a transitory stage (Holden 2007) confined to the youthful age of 20-30 after which one is expected to settle down." (p.19)
• "Our participants’ narratives reveal a gendered experience of singleness, which overtly pathologise single women while the single status of men remains shrouded in ambivalence. While there is a general recognition that society is moving towards an egalitarian organisation of intimate lives, our participants maintain that there is a ‘sexual double standard’ (Holden 2007) that continues to discipline women’s singleness" (p.22)
• "Spinsterhood becomes a concentrated site of derision against single women, whose childlessness constitutes a pathological lack (Kristeva 1982) against the cultural sanction for compulsory maternity (Butler 1990; Rubin 1975)." (p.23
• One participant talked about how "While the stereotype of the spinster has fallen out of popular use, it has nevertheless been replaced by the stereotype of the ‘crazy cat lady’, a ‘flawed’ woman whose failure to reproduce renders her eccentric (crazy) and in need of a surrogate child." (p.25)
• " While the stereotype of the carefree bachelor is prevalent in our interviews, however, the lived experience of singleness is not completely devoid of stigma for our male participants" (p.26)
• "heteronormativity has tacitly constructed perpetual singleness as ‘unnatural'" (p.26)
• "The bachelor - like the gay man - is emblematic of a man’s failure to attain ‘maternal abjection’ (Kristeva 1982). His father’s admonition demonstrates how bachelorhood has been culturally reworked as the ‘delegitimised’ sex since it fails to approximate the normative phantasm of compulsory heterosexuality" (p.27)
• "Our paper therefore extends the conceptualisation of ‘abjection’ through the exploration of singleness - which as our participants’ narratives show - is experienced as an ‘uncanny’ sense of social and psychic isolation and unfolds as a force through social networks of relations, markets, public and private spaces." (p.28)
• "Whether single-by-default – i.e. a state into which one is ‘thrown’ and therefore has to cope with – or single by reflexive choice (e.g. Annie, Carlos, Jess), our participants found themselves devoid of cultural and interpretive resources that support their experience of singleness. For our participants, singleness is a transitory state of being, in which their legitimacy as a cultural ‘subject’ is perpetually suspended in a liminal space while precariously tethered to the heteronormative ideals (Kristeva 1982). Unable to claim cultural legitimacy, many of our participants internalise this cultural imposition of heteronormativity, claiming that (prolonged) singleness is ‘unnatural’ and ‘unthinkable’ as a long-term prospect." (p.28)
• "our study suggests that the neglect of the singles market is politically vested in the institution of heteronormativity" (p.29)
• "Another fascinating insight afforded to gender theory by our data is the way in which participants describe their sense of ‘disempowerment’ against prevailing stigmas of singleness - as exemplified by stereotypes such as ‘the spinster’, ‘the crazy cat lady’, ‘the sexual pariah’, ‘the lonely old man’ and ‘the gay bachelor’. These stereotypes were profoundly felt by participants to be far more damaging to single women than single men." (p.30)
• "cultural stereotypes such as ‘spinster’ and ‘the crazy cat lady’ overtly discipline the single status of women since it reflects the regulative power of the Paternal Law that continues to subordinate women in relation to men. This stigmatisation is further compounded for women who are childless, as motherhood is culturally glorified as the sacred duty for women. Meanwhile, our male participants, while acknowledging the relative agency accorded to them through the stereotype of the bachelor, nevertheless reveal a problematic and lonely existence. Perpetual bachelorhood evokes ambivalence surrounding the homosexual tendency of single men, since the heteronormative framework necessitates the coming together of two discrete sexes" (p.30)
• "As we have indicated in our discussion of our sample, further field work is also necessary to incorporate the voices of gay/lesbian and asexual singles to gauge how their perceptions and experiences of singleness might challenge orthodox pressures of heteronormativity" ASEXUALITY MENTION OH THANK GOD. THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY UNAWARE (p.32)

Overall this was an interesting article - a lot of points made and ideas discussed here were familiar to me from the writings of people like Brown and Chen, and even at the time this was published much of this would already have been explored by Brake in Minimizing Marriage. Still, the connections drawn to the theories of Kristeva and Butler were very interesting, and I also found it interesting to see how many parallels there were with points that came up in the focus groups I ran! That said, I still found this article a little frustrating. Obviously it was written in 2015 when asexuality and aromanticism were far less talked-about as concepts, but it still feels like a huge blind spot that the article only mentions asexuality once in the ending section on where the research could be taken further, and aromanticism (which feels. more relevant though I acknowledge that back in 2015 there wasn't necessarily a clear distinction being made between the two) doesn't get mentioned at all. I mean, Minimizing Marriage was published three years before and that book was very clear on the fact that a-spec communities would be among those most affected by the societal norms being called into question. And furthermore, why wasn't amatonormativity brought up? I mean probably because they didn't know that was a thing but guys Minimzizing Marriage had already been published for three years we've already talked about this.

Anyway I think objectively it was a good article it just wound me up slightly LOL.

In addition to my reading, I also (finally) got around to watching the documentary Disclosure, about representations of trans people in media! Some notes:

• Trans people and the public image of trans people are both impacted by characters who are coded as trans even if they're not actually trans
• "As a trans person you have the most sensitive radar for if you're laughing with us or laughing at us"
• Overlap with stereotypes about gender + race e.g. Black men are painted as predatory and "hyper masculine"
• It did make me laugh when one Asian American trans actress said: "You're looking at the Asian-American trans representation. There is none."
• Apparently according to one GLAAD study 80% of Americans don't know any trans people personally, so media is an important source of information - made me kinda curious about how many people know a-spec people personally. I don't think that's something that's had any studies done
• "Trans people taught how to see themselves"
• "There's a one word solution - we just need more" - argues that with more trans representation it wouldn't matter when some representations are bad or "clumsy"
• One person took issue with the very concept of "disclosure" - it assumes that other people need to be told about trans status, that they'll have a problem with it, and that the other person's feelings are more important
• "I cannot be in the world until I see that I am in the world"
• "Changing representation is not the goal" - has to be part of a larger movement

Possible further reading/watching:

• Butler, J. (1988). Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory. Theatre Journal, Vol. 40(4), 519-531. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3207893
• Kristeva, J. (1982) Powers of Horror. An Essay on Abjection. New York: Columbia University Press
• Creed, B. (1993). The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism and Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge.
• Sex and the Single Girl by Helen Gurley Brown
• Paris is Burning

Other Events of the Week

• Took part in the final assessed performance of my friend's fine art piece. It was a bit different than the rehearsed performance as we were instructed to cut words mostly off each other instead of off ourselves, which I found made it a very different experience. It was like I was engaging with the texts other people had brought to the table more than my own.
• 
• Finally finished transcription!! Aware that I was supposed to have that done like a week ago oops. tbh just in general the time plan is already just falling apart - it turns out transcription takes a LOT longer than I expected it to. At least the coding has been taking less time than I thought so it might balance out? I've restructured a lot of my time plan in an attempt to fix this anyway.
• Started thematic analysis again!! I've done the first run of coding of all the TV case study transcripts - some interesting things have definitely come up, but I want to go over them at least once more to see if there's anything else I can get out of them. It's a bit stressful, because it's not a process I've ever used before and I almost don't know how to tell if I'm doing it right. Am I looking at the right things? Am I looking deeply enough at the texts and their messages? Literally who fucking knows!
• Thoughts so far on the codes that I'm identifying: Identifying patterns has been weirdly difficult. I feel like the shows take very different approaches to dealing with asexuality and aromanticism, and I keep thinking that certain things could be considered patterns and then realising that they actually don't show up that much. Like in my current draft I've talked about things like the important running theme of relationships and how a lot of them are meant to be educational, but now I'm seeing that a lot of them actually don't fall into those patterns. On a more positive note there's some interesting things I've noticed that could relate to things people brought up in the focus groups, which could be really great - one of the most consistent so far has been the issue of the emotions connected to asexuality and aromanticism - they're so often shown as upsetting, confusing, frustrating experiences, which I guess could be considered a negative view though I suppose it could also be considered just a natural consequence of needing to create conflict for a TV show. I don't knowwwwww.
• Also what are the differences in how asexuality and aromanticism are portrayed? They seem to be associated with similar emotions but I guess a lot of the time with asexuality those emotions are connected more to relationships
• Been reading The Making of Guys and Dolls by Keith Garebian - it's not amazingly written or anything but I'm enjoying learning fun facts about a musical I like! Mostly just mentioning it here because I think it's interesting how it talks about romance being an essential element of musical theatre, and how that overlaps with gender roles.

Previous week

Next week

Back to weekly journal

Back to home