Post #8: Monumental Proportions: Scale in D.C.’s Presidential Memorials

People build monuments not so much to individual human beings as to ideas and ideals. Though a monument or memorial may look like a man or a woman, it usually represents much more than that, to viewers and to builders. Often built long after the death of the nominal subject, a memorial indicates how its designers wish its subject to be remembered by viewers, how the designers themselves perceive and remember the subject, and the greater context within which the designers place the subject and the context within which the designers live and work – that is, the vantage point from which they remember the subject. In the end, a memorial represents not a whole person and a whole life honored and remembered but a life reconstructed, to present a message created by the designers and accepted by the viewers – a kind of shared cultural memory of someone and sometime that neither designers nor viewers perhaps ever knew personally.

Every detail of a memorial presents designers with an opportunity to control this message through the reconstruction and distortion of the subject’s life – to guide what viewers will see, feel, and remember as they view the final memorial “collage.” Size represents one of the most obvious ways for a monument to manipulate perception of its subject. In everyday life, the greater an object is in scale, the more it may impress its audience; the smaller in scale, the more it may invite approach and contact. Reduce something’s scale enough, and it can even go all the way from intimidating to cute – a tiny plastic Tyrannosaurus or a palm-sized plush Cthulhu the Elder God, for instance, might evoke more “aw” than awe. Though the designers of D.C. monuments have never altered the scale of human subjects so far as to produce either fear or protective affection from their viewers, they have used it to encourage certain audience relationships with the monuments and certain audience perceptions of their subjects. The three presidential memorials containing human figures provide examples of how differences in scale can result in very different visitor interaction with monuments and perception of their subjects.

(Click here to continue to the accompanying photo essay.)

Post #7: Enter the Wiki: Wikipedia Response

My familiarity with Wikipedia stretches back several years, beginning in the first year or so of my college career. For most of those years, I used Wikipedia as a convenient source for general information, a good site to Google for when I found myself unfamiliar with a name or concept. Off and on, I considered contributing to Wikipedia but never found a subject I felt knowledgeable or passionate enough about to justify writing on. This semester, though, I have written two articles for Wikipedia – both for school – and have found the process surprisingly easy and satisfying. Though I have some doubts about using Wikipedia as a course text unsupported by conventionally-published texts, this semester leaves me still believing in Wikipedia as a valuable general resource, one to which I now feel able to contribute.

Prior to writing my Wikipedia article for this class, I posted my first Wikipedia article earlier in the semester, based on an article I wrote for my English 302 class. Having written the article (which covered a Japanese playwright), I did not want to let it go to waste, achieving nothing but a grade; so I edited it, marked it up, and published it on Wikipedia. Though it did not get a very large response, the few comments it did receive were all positive. Combined with that positive response and the satisfaction of having contributed well-researched and –written-up information to a resource that too often lacks both, I began to look at Wikipedia as it should be looked at: As truly open-source, something which I (and anyone else) can edit and add to as my knowledge base and interests allow me.

With the experience gained from this first article, I looked forward to writing my second one, for this class. Research went smoothly, as did writing and editing the article for Wikipedia; my experience with my first article had familiarized me with the basic expected format and the formatting tools used in Wikipedia, and I had found both less complicated than I had worried they might be. In particular, in writing the first article and in writing this second one, I learned to pay attention to other writers’ articles: If I found myself uncertain how to format something, I looked through the coding of well-formatted articles to see what formatting they used. This “copy-and-paste” learning technique comes in handy – I have done the same with blog code and a little bit with html and found picking things up by example easier than looking through faqs and tutorials, in many cases.

My article, on the Federal Theatre Project’s Living Newspapers, turned out well, in my opinion; I published it feeling that I had improved significantly on the previously-existing stub article. However, I knew I could add more to it, and went on to do so throughout the semester. First, I added some bits of content that made the article more appealing to look at and read. Finding images for this purpose proved to be the hardest part of the entire project: Plenty of photographs and posters related to the Living Newspapers appear on the Web, but I had a difficult time deciding if any were really in the public domain. I finally settled on three that came from sites that seemed to allow their images’ use elsewhere, and then spent time working through uploading the images and deciding on accurate fair-use statements. No Wikipedia users have voiced any complaints about the images, and they remain up on the article – I hope this means that I chose appropriate materials, in the end. In addition to the images, I also added quotes heading three of the sections, to add color and human voice to the dry encyclopedic text.

As I first published it, my article covered the history of the FTP’s Living Newspapers chronologically; but I wanted to also cover the style elements that made the Living Newspapers unique and the international influences that inspired the U.S. Living Newspapers. I made these content additions after the smaller presentation additions described above, adding two sections, about a paragraph long each. The addition of more “Further Reading” listings and a bit of formatting clean-up followed this; and the article now stands as fairly complete. Other readers could still make additions and improvements – room for such certainly remains – but the article now has almost everything I thought should be in it when I set out to write it.

So far, I have received no feedback on the article. I enjoy getting feedback, so I find this a tad demoralizing – but I am hoping that the lack of response is a good thing. I figure it means one of three things: One, the article stands complete as it is, with readers seeing no obvious problems; two, few people read the article, as the subject is relatively obscure; or three, few people know enough about the subject to volunteer improvement or opinions. I’m hoping for “one” – and also wishing that Wikipedia offered a page-view counter so I could see if people are visiting the page.

Regardless, as with my first Wikipedia article, I enjoyed constructing and improving this one, and for the same reasons. As a person who researches subjects naturally, I like having a public forum in which to share the results of my research; and, as a believer in moving obscure information out of expensive, hard-to-find texts and into an easily-accessible and readable format, I support what Wikipedia seems to stand for. I will likely continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future.

As for using Wikipedia as a text itself, I still think that requires caution. Though many of the Wikipedia articles assigned for this class seemed thorough, well-researched, and decently written, I found others to be poorly written, scattered with opinions, sparse, and lacking citations. Wikipedia, I think, represents a spectacular resource and has the potential for great accuracy, breadth, and depth – but each article in Wikipedia has to be judged on an individual basis. Articles on established, stable, popular, thoroughly-documented subjects (such as the Civil War or Abraham Lincoln) receive constant policing and refining from many supporters; while articles on more obscure, controversial, or little-researched topics suffer from little policing and development. Using Wikipedia in a scholastic environment, for general background reading, can work well, as long as articles assigned receive quality-checking ahead of time, to make sure they have generally accurate information. When sub-par articles are assigned, they should be accompanied by discussion in class or additional published-text-based reading, to compensate for the errors and inadequacies in the articles.

Though I retain some reservations about using Wikipedia in an academic setting without great care and screening, my work with Wikipedia this semester leaves me further convinced of Wikipedia’s worth and potential as a general information resource. Having finally contributed to Wikipedia as a writer, instead of simply referring to it as a reader, I believe that I will continue to contribute to it in the future. Though work as a contributor does not appear to guarantee response from readers or from the Wikipedia community, I find the satisfaction of putting research together for a public audience worth the time and effort, regardless.

Post #6: Adapting to Men: Dating Advice in the 1950s and the Present Day

Gender roles vary from generation to generation and from culture to culture, with each age and people forming its own definition of what it means to be male or female. Though these definitions affect all aspects of individuals’ lives, perhaps nowhere do they figure so strongly as in the search for an appropriate mate. In the United States, young women throughout the 20th century could seek out and choose partners for themselves; but parents, peers, popular culture, education, and other outside sources have shaped their image of “Mr. Right” – and of how they should go about finding him, holding on to him, and behaving appropriately as “Mrs. Right” in relation to his “Mr.” A look at a 1950 educational film and a present-day talk show segment shows contrasting views on the acceptable life focuses of women but also reveals some consistencies in how women define men – and themselves, through their relationships with men.

Choosing for Happiness, Parts 1 and 2: An educational video from 1950:

Above, the 1950 educational film Choosing for Happiness gives college-age girls advice on how to select a marriage partner. Based on the book Marriage for Moderns by Dr. Henry A. Bowman, chairman of the Division of Home and Family and the Department of Marriage Education at Stephens College (a women’s college), the video follows a college junior, Eve, through several failed relationships, as an older female college friend advises her on what she did wrong in each relationship. The film prescribes an accepting, submissive role as a wife for women. Eve, whose name itself suggests the Biblical fallibility of women, demands change from each of her stereotyped dates: Alex, the self-absorbed jock; Arthur, the clueless math nerd; Steve, the quiet handyman; and John, the no-nonsense “good guy.” Eve’s older friend explains that fault for the breakups did not lie in any of the boys, but in Eve: Changing others is “impossible”; if Eve wants to find a boyfriend, the only person she can change is herself. She must not test men, demanding that they prove their feelings for her in any way; instead, she must look very hard for someone whom she can accept as he is, with whom she can be “friends for a very long time” as a marriage partner. Women only date, the film implies, in order to find spouses; nowhere does Eve’s friend suggest that she does not have to search for a boy or could live happily post-college by herself. In this male-authored vision of women’s gender roles, Alex, the narcissistic jock, can still get a worshipful girlfriend without changing his ways; but a woman cannot expect to find a spouse without altering herself, at least a little. Marriage takes precedence; a woman can choose – she can even be picky –, but she cannot expect to demand of men as they may demand of her.

“Men to Avoid”: An interview with dating counselor Kateryna Spivak on the talk show 3 Takes:

In contrast, this segment of the present-day talk show 3 Takes, in which dating counselor Kateryna Spivak gives advice on “men to avoid” to the show’s three hosts, presents a female-authored view of gender roles and how a woman should relate to the opposite sex. Here, the counselor and hosts agree with the 1950 film, in claiming that the only person a woman can hope to change is herself – that is, she should not pursue a relationship in hopes of changing a man; but these women also claim the right to reject some men as undesirable for any woman. Where the 1950 film stated that the stereotyped men Eve rejected just needed someone “right for them,” this present-day segment allows women to pass judgment on some men as hurtful or even dangerous to women – again, stereotyped men like the “narcissist,” the “bad boy,” and the “mama’s boy.” Women, as suggested by this segment, also need not approach dating as a test stage for marriage: The hosts, all years beyond the college age of the 1950 girls, present dating advice for women, it seems, of any age. They neither champion nor declaim marriage; the present day woman, the piece seems to suggest, need not rush to find a mate – she can take her time finding just the right person and live unmarried indefinitely. She can even actively test her partner, getting him to “prove his love” by spending time with her, being constantly available, and introducing her to his friends and family. Here, a woman can still only expect change from herself; but she may also challenge men in a relationship and condemn some men outright.

Yet, the segment also implies a remaining divide between gender roles and, perhaps, a remaining hierarchy of the sexes. The hosts and counselor mention danger, doubt, and the potential for hurt and deception in the dating world many times throughout the segment, giving the sense that women must protect themselves from men and be on guard against them. Where the girls in the 1950 film placed themselves slightly below men through acceptance and denial of male fault, the women in this present-day show rank themselves as slightly below men through vulnerability and the potential for victimization. In this present-day view, men can hurt and lie to women, and women must guard themselves against these threats; but this show, at least, does not explore the possibility of women holding similar power over men. Double standards still seem to govern the definition of the female gender role, even though the standards themselves have changed significantly.

This comparison of both of these films, one from 1950 and one from the present-day, shows that, while accepted life focuses for women have changed, defining gender roles still govern the interactions of women with men. Present-day women may wait to marry or live independently and may demand more of men in relationships, but they still must remain wary of men, carefully interacting with human beings separated from women by the impassable gender divide. Though what women may expect from men has changed, the division of men from women and the strictness of gender roles, has, perhaps, remained in place.