A “thick description” is an anthropological interpretation of a gesture within a certain cultural framework (parodies and pastiches are also included here) . However, do those gestures symbolize a hidden code within a specific context? When someone poses at the moment of taking him or her picture, are those funny, ridiculous, and serious or whatever faces a cultural behavior? Can we consider those fixed expressions social facts? In fact, body language may change according to the culture of the individual, by example, a gesture has an amusing meaning for a group of people but it could be very offensive to another. Furthermore, signs and gestures can be interpreted using several theoretical analysis, as soon as we remember what old good Saussure taught us about the double nature of the sign: signifier and signified.
Well, here the billion question comes: how can we include the previous brainstorm into our original subject? If we consider that the signifier is every physical and actual realization of a gesture and the signified is strictly linked with the mental, social and cultural load linked with that, we can include the notions of social facts and thick description within it.
To exemplify it, we must pay attention to the guys portrayed in the pictures which illustrate this post. They have made some funny faces in front of the camera. Someone may say that these faces are just that, funny. But, why do these gestures make us think of that? What is the “funny” side of those faces? The signifiers are clear: every individual pulls faces choreographically; mimicking feminine gestures in the first picture and certain facial expressions identified as characteristic features of mental disability. Since these two guys seem to be average heterosexual and posses a regular intelligence, the only reason to pull those faces is to perform a parody. Or in other words, mimicking women and mentally challenges individuals is funny because it is considered ridiculous. That is the social fact behind that: what we consider funny is the dissociation between the traditional environment of these signifieds (women used as seduction devices and mentally challenged individuals employed as objects of sympathy) and their current signifiers (those two guys). The fact that the two leading characters of these portrayal are young, men, mentally "normal" and straight (as far as I know) exemplifies that our culture imposes us certain stereotypes as subjects of laughter and mockery. At the same time, there is a double connotation when a man mimics womanly gestures: he mocks women or he mocks homosexuals (who are traditional portrayed as wannabe women). Additionally, when certain gestures- associated to mental disabilities features- are displayed outside their regular signifiers, a bizarre feeling emerges, i.e. Chilean society excludes mental disables, hence these individuals have an utilitarian function: they are wildcards . We make fun of them because they does not fit within the boundaries of our “normality”, as consequence, what is not “normal” is ridiculous and to be ridiculous means is funny…for us.
Finally, there are final questions which surge from this little reflection: are we aware of the stereotypes present in every gesture we make? Are we active subjects who question cultural loads imposes to us or are we replicants who just repeat the “software” that society run on us without doubting, questioning or including new perspectives? Do we have the ability to fight against that?
p.d: It is possible to think that the title doesn’t have any relation to the content of this post, Maybe that is true. However, I like the movie and the novel who inspire it and I’m having a fever of 38 ºC while I am writing this post. So I am actually looking how electric sheep are grazing around me…
No comments:
Post a Comment