Pick-Up Artist: The Musical    Encouraging  public  discourse  and  social  change  through  pop-­‐cultural  sociology  

By Matthew Hornbeck

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

in Applied Sociology Northern Arizona University

April 2008

2

CHAPTER 1 The Overture

School had never been my strong suit and this experience was not helping in exercising my mental

muscles. This was my third week in a community college Sociology 101 class and so far the professor had only

showed up once. Prior to this, I had taken a yearlong forced sabbatical due to my 0.7 G.P.A. Now, twenty of us

sat diligently for fifteen minutes every Tuesday and Thursday waiting for our teacher to arrive. Like Zimbardo’s

unknowing subjects, we sat, adhering to our role expectations as students; waiting for the academic prison guard

to fulfill his. I began to sign and pass the all too familiar sheet of paper when through the doors burst a fireball

of energy in the form of a teacher.

We were quickly informed that the old, unenthused professor had to abdicate his position due to

“unforeseen circumstances” and this new whirlwind of passion would be his successor. The iron curtain of

academic drudgery had been torn down! Throughout the rest of the semester, I found myself getting excited

about the ideas presented within the thought circles of Sociology. I had been recruited. That moment marked

my first acknowledgment of an ongoing journey I have taken into the world of sociological thought and its

implications for everyday lives. A journey characterized by joy and pain, the exciting and the mundane. What

you are about to read is that journey’s story. (Dramatic pause) The story of a boy and … his THESIS!1

Building Bridges

Presently, a fast growing phenomenon among American “tweens” is Disney’s High School Musical.

Books, T.V. specials, movies, and a touring show come together to present the franchised world of ‘high

school’2. Within this constructed world lies a hidden curriculum, espousing ideological expectations of

masculinity, femininity, racialized stereotypes, and class distinctions coupled with American values like

meritocracy and nationalism. This fusion of such ideas ends up creating the content of a new bubblegum-pop

form of socialization. Such socialization becomes a dangerous reality when its gendered assumptions or racist

ideals get uncritically consumed and disseminated throughout a multitude of social institutions and structures

reinforcing a hegemonic tone within social conversations and institutional decisions. If the High School Musical

1 To get the full effect of this last sentence, you must read it and imagine a large orchestral underscore accompanying it. Much like the “Star Wars Theme” at the end of “A New Hope”, or perhaps the battle music at the end of “Braveheart”. Really any musical score will do, just so long as you get the effect of triumphant victory. 2 Just in it’s first year the High School Musical movie won a myriad of awards, from an Emmy for best musical soundtrack, to a Billboard Music Award for Album of the Year and not surprisingly, a Teen Choice Award for Best Television Comedy/Musical. As of 2008, the High School Musical franchise has produced a 42 date arena concert tour, spanning from North to South America, a High School on Ice show that tours around the world and multiple themed shows that are performed at all Disneyland Parks. When High School Musical 2 debut it was greeted with over 18.6 million viewers in the U.S. and 195 million viewers in 24 different languages from around the world (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6513172.html). These are just a few statistics showing the incredible impact just one pop-cultural show can have on the development of media products.

3

phenomena were an isolated case, we could bunker down and wait for the storm to pass. Unfortunately, this is

not an isolated cloudburst, but an ongoing epidemic, one that has proved resourceful in its adaptation and

injurious in its social implications.

As academics in the field of Sociology, we have been trained to critically analyze such cultural

movements and offer solutions geared towards social change and equality. We have, however, remained widely

unheard by mainstream society. Golden-Biddle and Locke acknowledge this inaccessibility within the writing

of the applied disciplines claiming that “we (as academics) become socialized into the language and writing

practices that symbolize the culture of science and that are traditionally transmitted across generations of

academics” (2007:11), but which ultimately remains out of reach for the non-academic. In our attempt to gain

credence from the hard sciences, Sociology has, at times, taken on a somewhat inaccessible approach in its

presentation of highly informed and important commentaries of pop-culture. As a result, the primary voices

heard by mainstream society are those of ad-agencies and Hollywood elites. With the exception of cultural

creators such as Martin Scorsese, Stephen Sondheim, U2, Spike Lee, or Joss Wedon (to name a few), the

sociological voice has been missing from the pop-cultural conversations of mainstream America. Highly

insightful documentaries get reserved for the classroom, where students zone out until they get home and

receive their ideological worldviews of identity and social involvement from MTV and reality shows like Big

Brother or The Real World.

In an attempt to promote discourse within the realm of academia, we as academics, have inadvertently

relegated colloquial concepts to the margins and elevated our critiques of popular culture into academic ivory

towers. How can the voice of the cultural critic be understood if it is not spoken in the cultural language of their

audience?

We already know that the mediums of pop-culture can be used as tools of socialization. According to

Steinberg and Kincheloe (2004), the dilemma of the postmodern child is not whether or not the hyperreality of

popular culture is having an affect on American youth, but rather how is this access to adult knowledge

affecting the ways in which American youth are constructing their identities and self-conceptions. Therefore,

the aim of my research has been to examine the potential of these pop-cultural tools through a twofold process.

First, I researched both classic and contemporary literature that addresses the effects pop-cultural mediums have

on the formation of mainstream ideologies. I looked at the classic canons of Blumer’s Symbolic Interactionism

and Goffman’s Dramaturgy as well as more contemporary explorations into the sociology of storytelling

(Plummer, 1995; Mahoney, 2007), performance ethnography (Denzin, 2003b, Alexander, 2005), ethnodrama

and ethnotheatre (Mienczakowski, 1995; Saldaña, 2005).

Second, I explored how such art forms, like a musical, can be used effectively to convey sociological

ideas to a mainstream audience. I conducted the second part of this research by creating a musical play (Pick-Up

Artist: The Musical). I infused sociological ideas about identity construction in relation to expressions of

4

hegemonic masculinity (and the implications for femininity) through the presentation of stereotypical characters

and the social repercussions such stereotypes imply. After creating the sociological musical, I put together a

staged reading that was performed in front of a varied audience, including professors, students of all disciplines,

and members of the Flagstaff community. Prior to the performance, I conducted two focus groups each

comprised of the staged reading participants (actors/musicians) in an attempt to understand their interpretations

of the presented ideas both individually and as a collective; thus, ascertaining the effectiveness of using such

pop-cultural mediums as vehicles of sociological knowledge. My goal throughout this process was to answer

the following question: How can pop-cultural mediums, such as a musical, be used to promote sociological

knowledge and ultimately encourage social discourse and ideological change?

Due to the prevalence and growth of popular cultural influences shaping mainstream ideologies, I see

the present as a perfect time for academics to begin exploring the mediums of pop-culture, not just as critics, but

also as creators. Our contemporary American culture needs sociological voices, they need examples of how to

critically consume pop-culture, and they need the insights of Sociology to be presented in a format that is both

relevant and accessible. If this doesn’t happen, I believe that the helpful insights of our modern academics will

be confined to the ears of departmental choirs and their unheard “Amen”.

“Pop-Culture”: A New Four-Letter Word!

When I mention bridging the worlds of popular culture and sociological research together many people

might envision Brittany Spears shaking her “bon-bon” to a techno-remix of Emile Durkheim’s The Rules of

Sociological Method. Others might conclude that I am campaigning to make the next Pacific Sociological

Association Conference into a contemporary “Woodstock”, with books and notepads. And yet others might

interpret my proposition as the second sign of the academic apocalypse, a Dark Age where research is fashioned

to promote the laws of the ruling king and produce economic success. This cornucopia of understanding is not

that unheard of, due to the fact that the term “pop-culture” has come to carry a multitude of meanings. In order

to accurately understand my research and proposal for social change, we must first understand how I am

utilizing the term “pop-culture”. Equally important, we must also understand my working definition for the term

“culture”.

The term “culture” can have multiple definitions. It can refer to particular realms of group life such as

“special activities or material artifacts characteristic of particular groups, like opera, rap music, folk song”

anything that represents “the identity of the group” (Spillman, 2002:3). “Culture” can also be referred to “as an

attribute of entire groups or societies” (Spillman, 2002:2). This is primarily applied when we enter a new setting

and perceive symbols and rituals being used in a way different than what we are familiar with. Spillman

proposes a definition of cultures as “processes of meaning-making” (2002:2).

5

By viewing culture as processes of meaning making we “can encompass both culture as specialized

realm and culture as an attribute of groups” (Spillman, 2002:4). From this stance, culture becomes an active

agent in the identification of group insiders and outsiders. As the collective creates meanings and attaches them

to particular activities, symbols or what not, the collective is then able to create inclusive and exclusive

determinants for their cultural group. It is for this reason that cultural researchers, ascribing to this definition,

study these meaning-making processes within three social arenas: “meaning-making in everyday action, the

institutional production of meaning, and the shared mental frameworks, which are the tools of meaning-making”

(Spillman, 2002:2). Out of this constructed culture comes a subset, termed “popular culture”.

The term “popular culture” also carries with it a variety of meanings. John Storey highlights six

definitions consistently used in pop-culture dialogue3. One of the more popular views contends that popular

culture is “mass culture”. This means that pop-culture is more or less “a sort of ideological machine which …

effortlessly reproduces the dominant ideology” (Storey, 1998:12) without any say from those being

subordinated. This definition becomes problematic in that it ignores the agency involved in human interaction

and thus reaffirms the powerlessness of oppressed groups. Augusto Boal (1979), a revolutionary thinker in the

theatre community, showed through his theatrical experiments in Brazilian communities that the conventions of

popular culture are not under the strict control of the ruling class, but rather a site of social exchange between

the oppressed and their oppressors. This means that popular culture cannot be seen as simply a machine of

ideological control. Rather our definition must acknowledge the dynamic interplay between dominant and

subordinate values, beliefs and ideals and the cultural meanings such interaction-based productions create.

For my research, I chose to operate out of a neo-Gramscian definition of popular culture, developed from

the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci’s concept of “hegemony”. Hegemony is a political term that refers to the

“process in which dominant class (in alliance with other classes or class fractions) does not merely rule a

society but leads it through the exercise of moral and intellectual leadership” (Storey, 1998:124). Basically this

means that, despite oppressive rule by society’s dominant group, those being subjugated conform to the

dominant group’s ideologies and thus develop a group consensus and societal stability consistent with the

dominant group’s value system.

3  The first is the simplest and refers to the culture that is liked or enjoyed by a large number of people. The next three

definitions focus on divisions that arise within the production of culture. Some see popular culture as “the culture that is left over after we have decided what is high culture” (Storey, 1998:7-8), while others take it a step further and contend that popular culture is not simply that which is ‘left over’, but that which has been mass produced in an attempt to make a profit. Where ‘high culture’ exists for the innateness of itself, what Storey refers to as “mass culture” (1998, 10) exists for commercial success and consumption. Both definitions seem to create a high culture/popular culture divide that promotes elitists exclusivity, legitimating class/social distinctions through the standard of specific moral and aesthetic judgments. Storey’s fourth definition also creates this cultural divide, but from the opposite direction. Popular culture, from this viewpoint, is “culture which originates from ‘the people’” (Storey, 1998:12). Unlike the mass culture definition, this grass-roots definition sees popular culture as belonging only to ‘the people’ without any forced ideological control from the dominant power groups. Already we can see the problematic road created by following this train of thought. First off, the definition doesn’t clearly define who qualifies as ‘the people’ and it doesn’t acknowledge the source of the resources from which the ‘popular culture’ is created. The sixth definition is informed by postmodern thought and doesn’t recognize the distinction between high and popular culture.

6

According to Storey, the oppressed group generally buys into or incorporates “values, ideals, objectives,

cultural and political meanings” that support and sustain “prevailing structures of power” (1998:124). However,

this is different from the definition of mass culture in that those in the subordinate group still retain ideological

influence through, what Stuart Hall termed “articulation”: a term that “plays on the its double meaning: to

express and to join together” (Storey, 1998:128).

As individuals within the subordinate social groups begin to articulate their views through combining

and transforming products produced by the culture industries (dominant groups), they create oppositional

meanings. These meanings are often contrary to the initial producers intended meaning, a process known in

cultural studies as bricolage. Furthermore, the originality and opposition that is articulated often gets moved

towards a “commercial incorporation and ideological diffusion as the culture industries eventually succeed in

marketing subcultural resistance for general consumption and profit” (Storey, 1998:126). It is through this

process of resistance and incorporation that pop-culture emerges.

The act of articulation becomes an important element in this process in that it results in meaning-

making. Because we all socially articulate with, what Volosinov referred to as, different “accents”, different

meanings can then be ascribed to the same cultural texts and practices making meaning-making “the site and

result of struggle” (Storey, 1998:129). It is at this site of struggle that social researchers should situate

themselves to promote ideological change.

“All The World’s A Stage …”

I climbed up the stairs to the back entrance of the stage. The faint sounds of ‘Blondie’ could be heard

pushing their way through the beat-up speakers of an old boom-box as a hand full of carpenters added finishing

touches to the plywood set of next month’s show. As I opened the door, my senses were bombarded with the

aroma of my past. The smells of acrylic paint mixed with wood shavings and century old dust quickly

transported me back to 1995.

It was the summer before my freshman year of high school. The California sun was exceptionally hot

that morning and I had found myself outside in front of the high school theatre building waiting for my turn to

audition for “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers”. My name was called and I quickly moved my way through the

doors and down the long aisle-way onto the Proscenium Arched Stage. All the while my senses, like those of a

newborn baby, were experiencing one sensation after another. That distinct aroma of paint, sawdust and history,

accompanied by shafts of stage lights as they penetrated the dense air, followed by the subtle sound of my beat-

up Converse tearing away from the newly painted stage floor. Each of these sensations coming together seemed

to collectively mark the beginning of an ongoing passion I have personally maintained for the theatre. Amidst

7

my thoughts I miraculously made it to a chair in the back row of the theatre. The lights dimmed and the sparsely

populated room grew reservedly silent. Two actors took the stage …

As I remember, Adam, it was upon this fashion bequeathed me by will but poor a thousand

crowns, and, as thou sayest, charged my brother, on his blessing, to breed me well: and there

begins my sadness … (As You Like It; Act I, Scene I)

With a subtle change in lighting, speech, and clothing, I got transported into another world. A world

where women dress as men, a world where princes and noble lords valiantly stand for the righteous in the face

of oppression. Those who love effortlessly see it realized, and those who champion deceit are eventually shown

the errors of their ways. And if that’s not fantastical enough, my voyeuristic journey through this world was

concluded with Hymen, the god of marriage, entering in and sealing the lover’s charades with his deistic

approval and matrimonial ceremony. I loved every minute of it!

“Shakespeare” has become an iconic name within the western world. The infamous playwright has

become the subject matter for numerous books, movies, commentaries, and college courses. His plays are

performed continuously throughout European cultures and still viewed as applicable to contemporary times.

Yes, it seems as though Shakespeare has become the poster-child for theatre and what some term “high culture”.

What is even more fascinating is the fact that during his lifetime William Shakespeare and his canonized plays

were the epitome of popular culture. His plays appealed to both high and low class and were exemplarily

expressions of the social concerns and critiques of his time.

In the immortal bard’s most famous pastoral comedy, As You Like It, the audience is, on one level,

entertained, while on the other introduced to groundbreaking commentaries concerning issues of gender

performance. Rosalind, the plays primary female role is forced to leave her home in the court of her uncle, Duke

Frederick, and disguise herself as a young boy named “Ganymede”, which means “Jove’s own page” referring

to “the young male lover Zeus carried up to Olympus” (Johnston, 2001:14). This play on words allows the

audience to grapple with issues of homosexuality and female empowerment within a context of fantasy world.

This allowed for a level of comfort to be maintained by those invested in maintaining the status quo, while still

opening up dialogue and discourse concerning such issues.

By situating Rosalind within the guise of a man, she becomes freed to hold personality traits socially

ascribed to men and thus, occupy a position of dominance and authority, which would not have been acceptable

for a woman to occupy within the play’s social context. In the same way, by giving Rosalind’s alter-ego the

name Ganymede, Shakespeare is able to introduce ideas of homosexuality within the love triangle of Phebe (a

shepherdess in love with Ganymede), Orlando (a young noble in love with Rosalind, but developing a deep and

intimate friendship with “Ganymede”) and Rosalind, who loves Orlando, but counsels him as “Ganymede”,

while avoiding the advances of Phebe.

8

Along with gender bending presentations and explorations into homosexual expression, the play is also

littered with social commentaries that constantly ask the audience to acknowledge their social positions and the

assumed conventions that accompany them. However, the genius lies not so much in the commentaries

themselves, but in the way such social critiques are presented. If Shakespeare were to simply present a lecture

that challenged the submissive role ascribed to women or the important value acknowledging multiple

sexualities, his audience would most likely be few and far between. But, by presenting such ideas within a social

vehicle of entertainment, Shakespeare was able to employ a delicate balance between amusement and critique,

all the while blurring the line between the play’s world and the audience’s lived reality. As the melancholy

Jaques stated: “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players …”.

This fusion of critique and contentment is not a convention exclusive to Shakespearian writing, but one

that has become prevalent within the realm of theatrical performance. It is for this reason that I feel theatre is a

valid and powerful tool for promoting social change. In his book Playwriting: The Structure of Action, Sam

Smiley beautifully describes the impact art can have on a society and its individuals, stating that:

… [A]rt objects produce specific pleasure in human beings. That quality alone makes an artist’s labor

worthwhile, because life never offers enough striking experiences. Art can also furnish knowledge about

human beings. It always signifies something about life, even if only a view, a feeling, or a question. Art

functions as a special kind of order in the chaos of life. It offers controlled and lasting beauty in the

midst of a dissonant world (2005:9).

With the mainstream success of Disney Channel’s High School Musical, pop-culture has seen

resurgence in the use of the ‘musical’ as a genre of popular entertainment and ideological presentation. Other

mainstream examples of this resurgence are writer/director Baz Luhrmann’s 2001 musical film “Moulin

Rouge”; the Broadway success of “Rent” (1998) eventually leading to a major movie adaptation (2005); MTV’s

2007 debut of “Legally Blond: The Musical”; CBS’s reality TV show “You’re the One That I Want” (2006)

which took audiences through the process of casting the Broadway revival of “Grease”; even certain TV shows

(‘Scrubs’ (2006) and ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ (2000)) have created episodes in the ‘musical’ format. One of

the most recent examples of the ‘musical’ resurgence is the box office success of Julie Taymore’s film, “Across

the Universe” (2007) in which a litany of Beatle songs are strung together as a way of telling the story of the

60’s generation.

It is in light of this refocus on the “musical” as an entertainment medium that I have chosen to imitate

this genre through my construction of the play Pick-Up Artist: The Musical. My research has been the

developmental product of my historical passion for the theatrical arts and my desire to see sociological insights

become accessible to a mainstream audience.

9

The pages that follow will take us on my Homer-esque odyssey through the realms of academics and

pop-culture. We will begin with the epic “Battle of the Paradigms”, traveling behind the walls of research in the

Trojan horse of critical theory. After the dust has settled we will find ourselves camped on the “Island of the

Theoretical Giants”, Blumer and Goffman, basking in the academic light of their studies and indulging in the

literary feasts of other researchers that have followed their lead.

Once we have sufficiently succeeded in gathering the provisions provided by previous research, we will

begin our trek across the vast “Ocean of Original Research and Methodology”. At times it may feel like we

have descended into the underworld of academic tedium, but don’t be fooled by the sirens’ cry; we have set our

course and we will reach “The Land of Analysis”. However, once here we may feel the strong desire to stay and

analyze into the years, but that would not be true to our quest. As such, we will continue on. Onward to our

conclusion, our Ithaca, taking the things we have learned home and bringing with us social change.

10

CHAPTER 2 Lights: Illuminating Paradigms

When I was ten-years-old, I built a palace. It was my kingdom in an oak tree sky and through my eyes it

was perfect. A few days after I received my fictitious seal of approval, I had some friends over to marvel at my

adolescent Arcosanti. The trio stood before the eighth world wonder in utter silence. In the stillness of that cool

summer breeze, I knew I had achieved greatness.

Then, without warning, my friends formed their firing squad line and began sling-shooting insults at my

personalized creation. Like Snoopy evading the “Archie fire” of the Red Baron, I tried to dodge each attack.

Unfortunately, I was too slow. With each shot to my outer shell, I saw my heavenly home transform into

plywood, bark, and miss-hammered nails. This experience was my first introduction to the power and influence

of paradigms on our perceptions of the world. Through the assertive paradigms put forth by my elementary

companions, I saw my celestial worldview descend to an earthly realm.

Much like my views of the pine tree palace, researchers also bring various worldviews with them into

the research they perform. In this chapter, I will illuminate the paradigms I brought with me into my research

and how it has affected the way in which I gathered and interpreted my data.

My Academic Family Tree: The Roots of My Methods

As I embarked on this very exploratory method of research, it was essential to first acknowledge my

epistemological orientation, or the paradigm that informs my methodological choices. Guba and Lincoln define

a paradigm as “the basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices of method

but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways” (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994:105). When the

investigator becomes aware of their stated paradigm, it can help them to define “the nature of the ‘world’, the

individual’s place in it, and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts” (Denzin and Lincoln,

1994:107).

My research design has been informed by the paradigm of critical theory. Critical theory was first

developed by the Frankfurt school in Germany and focused on “philosophical and social thought, especially

Marx, Kant, Hegel, and Weber” (Kincheloe and McLaren, 1994:138). The founding theorists (Max

Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse) began by challenging “the social science establishment’s

belief that their research could describe and accurately measure any dimension of human behavior” (Kincheloe

and McLaren, 1994:139).

According to Kincheloe and McLaren, the critical researcher approaches their work with the intention of

producing cultural or social criticisms and with the overarching assumption that the nature of social inquiry is

value-determined, leading to seven basic assumptions: (1) at its root, any social thought is mediated by the

11

various power relations as they pertain to their social and historical context; (2) facts always rest in the domain

of values and are never “removed from some form of ideological inscription” (1994:139); (3) social

relationships (between object and concept or signifier and signified) are never fixed and often are arbitrated by

the exchange of production and consumption, especially in a capitalistic culture; (4) language is the cornerstone

of subjectivity formation; (5) principles of hegemony maintain and reproduce privilege for those in power; (6)

we can often overlook the extensive interconnectedness between the “many faces” of oppression by only

focusing on one oppression at a time (1994:140); and (7) the mainstream practices of academic research often

become “implicated in the reproduction of systems of class, race, and gender oppression” (1994:140). Critical

theory thus aims to address and confront issues of injustice and promote individual empowerment.

Along this line of thought, critical theory, while promoting that reality is a social and historical

construction, acknowledges “that ideologies are not simply deceptive and imaginary mental relations that

individuals and groups live out relative to their material conditions of existence, but are also very much

inscribed in the materiality of social and institutional practices” (Kincheloe and McLaren, 1994:140). This can

be seen through what Kincheloe and McLaren refer to as hyperreality: “an information society socially

saturated with ever-increasing forms of representation: filmic, photographic, electronic, and so on” (Kincheloe

and McLaren, 1994:1442). Hyperreality presents images of a social reality as consigned by the dominant group.

Through this “reality” social statuses are ascribed values and institutional power is maintained as “status-quo”.

Therefore, guided by Guba and Lincoln (1994), my paradigm addressed questions of ontology, epistemology,

and methodology.

My first question was ontological and asked “what is reality comprised of and what about it can a

researcher hope to know?” Critical theory takes a historical realism approach in answering this question,

claiming that reality is a construction of history and society (including all its institutional sub-parts as well as its

social interactions); these fuse together through the formation (thesis) and deconstruction (antithesis) of

‘structures’, as they get interpreted as “real” or “natural and immutable” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994:110).

Looking at the influence and effects of pop-cultural mediums on collective ideologies, I focused on assumed

“realities” within the rhetoric of identity, in particular hegemonic masculinity and its implications for

femininity. Through the grid of historical realism, I have acknowledged patterns within history and institutions

and how they have developed and solidified into the assumed realities we espouse in present day mainstream,

American popular culture.

My next question was an epistemological one and focused on “the relationship between the knower or

would-be knower and what can be known” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994:108). The assumption here is informed by

a transactional or subjectivist approach, claiming that the investigator is continually influencing the investigated

during the research process. As a result, the investigator must always acknowledge the values they are bringing

into the investigation and be aware of how those values are affecting and influencing the investigated and their

12

responses. The crux of my research is designed to highlight this process. Pick-Up Artist: The Musical has

included many value-mediated ideas from my own personal experience as a white, middle-class, male,

American sociologist. The goal of the focus groups was to actively seek out how these values are perceived and

thus how they influenced the play participants.

The final level of inquiry was methodological, asking the question “How can the inquirer (would-be

knower) go about finding out whatever he or she believes can be known?” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994:108) At

this level, dialogue and a dialectical approach become the process through which what can be known is known.

The inquiry must be formatted within a dialogue (investigator –to investigated) that is dialectically structured so

that both voices are equally acknowledged and incorporated into the research. The voice of the investigated is as

important as the investigator’s interpretations.

Along with a presentation of my personal journey, the construction of a play as a social educator also

fits into a proposal suggested by Steinberg and Kincheloe (2004) as a new approach to “cultural pedagogy”.

Cultural pedagogy suggests that education occurs in a multitude of social environments. By creating a play that

incorporates my own journey of identity construction as well as introduces sociological ideas and critiques, this

new pedagogy can accomplish the goals advanced by Steinberg and Kincheloe (2004), providing a

developmental place where the audience can gain cognitive skills and abilities that empower them to teach

themselves, make sense of the information being presented to them, begin to understand real life questions of

power and justice, and in turn, become independent agents of true democracy. As audience members and play

participants gain the abilities to make sense of complex situations in real life and hyperreality, they will in turn

be able to communicate their insights within their broader social settings (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2004:31-

34).

13

CHAPTER 3

Camera: Theoretical Strategies for Capturing Interpreted Pop-culture

It was my third lap around the football field. The trademark California ocean breeze forgot to clock in

and the result was a continuous stream of sweat drenching my being like an Amazon monsoon. This was my

punishment for missing yet another pass. I rounded lap number four as I began to drift into memories of the day

before.

I had just auditioned for my high school’s summer musical and the show tunes still rung loudly in mind

(looking back now I think it was due in part to the delirium caused by the oppressive sun and the wind’s sudden

desire to play hooky). Underscored by the chorus of “Oh What A Beautiful Morning”, I began to take inventory

of my possible high school options. Then, in mid-equation it dawned on me, I HATE RUNNING! Like a

spiritual awakening it all became very clear. I loved the theatre. I left the field that day conscious of the course I

would take, but not clear as to why I felt so strongly about it.

In this chapter, I will review just a segment of the many academics that share my passion for the theatre.

Not only that, but I will show how my initial passion for theatre, while inspired by my abhorrence of running,

was based on deeper issues of human interaction, social expression, and ultimately the desire to participate in

venues of social change. As such, I will look at three primary areas in sociological literature that illuminate

these ideas: 1) sociological social psychology as represented by Symbolic Interaction and Dramaturgy; 2) the

sociology of storytelling and ethnographic performances; and 3) the sociology of gender and hegemonic

masculinity. The goal of this chapter is to illuminate the pertinence of theatre in the realm of academia and

show how this wealth of literature relates to my construction of Pick-Up Artist: The Musical.

Social Psychology: “We Were Born For the Stage!”

While I find personal connection to the medium of a theatrical musical, there is also theoretical

legitimation for its use in conveying sociological ideas. I have found the format of the theatre to be compatible

with the sociological insights presented by such classical social theorists as Herbert Blumer (Symbolic

Interactionism) and Erving Goffman (Dramaturgy).

According to Blumer, symbolic interaction is the process through which individuals within a society

interpret the actions of others and then formulate responses based on the interpretation or assumed meaning of

the action performed. Basing much of his theory on the thoughts and lectures of George Herbert Mead, Blumer

further developed the idea of the individual’s “self”. Through social interaction with other human beings the

individual ends up “become[ing] the object of his own action” (Blumer, 1969:62) allowing each individual to

14

indicate things to themselves. Having the ability to make indications is important because in order to indicate

something you must first give it meaning, therefore making it an “object”. An object is simply put; “anything

that can be indicated” (Blumer, 1969:10). Objects become the product of our symbolic interactions creating

meaning that arise “fundamentally out of the way they are defined to him [the individual] by others with whom

he interacts” (Blumer, 1969:11). Individual action then becomes a constructed product of multiple moments of

self-indication, or created objects. Taking this a step further, collective action is the result of forming together

individual actions, brought about by interpreting each other’s actions. As a result, human interaction becomes a

process “mediated by the use of symbols or objects, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one

another’s actions” (Blumer, 1969:79).

The play format allows for a symbolic presentation through which individuals (within the audience or

performing) can identify characteristics similar to or representative of their own assumed characteristics and

thus, begin to interpret, act towards, and indicate the theatrically presented “self”. By identifying the stage

character’s representation of one’s own “self” characteristics, the audience member or performer creates both

social and abstract “objects” with which they can interact. Through the interaction of character presentation and

audience observation that takes place within a theatrical performance, individuals, within a society, actively

engage and participate in the construction and reconstruction of social and abstract objects, which end up taking

the form of ideal character types. In many ways this is how Blumer interpreted human societies as a whole:

Human society is to be seen as consisting of acting people, and the life of the society is to be seen as

consisting of their actions. The acting units may be separate individuals, collectivities whose members

are acting together on a common quest, or organizations acting on behalf of a constituency. … There is

no empirically observable activity in a human society that does not spring from some acting unit

(1969:85).

Goffman expounds on this process, and in particular the “acting units”, in his dramaturgical analysis of

human interactions. He claims that all human beings engage in a variety of social performances. Performances

are defined as “all the activity of an individual which occurs during a period marked by his continuous presence

before a particular set of observers and which has some influence on the observers” (1959:22).

Drawing on the melancholy Jaques’ laborious lament, Goffman concludes that all human interaction and

performances take place on various “social stages”. Goffman divides our social stages into three regions; “front

stage”, “back stage” and “outside” or “off-stage”. Front stage performances are the most active, involving the

performer and their audience. It is here that the performer is most engaged in striving to present a particular

image of themselves. Often this image presentation is mediated through a series of negotiations between the

performer’s “appearance” (stimuli that give cues to interpreting the performer’s social status) and “manners”

15

(stimuli that clue the audience member into what type of interaction they will experience with the

performer)(Goffman, 1959:24, 107-108).

The back stage performance occurs when the performer is present but there is no active audience. As a

result, the performer is free to step out of their presented character without feeling like they will discredit or

disrupt their performance. In the back stage performance “the impression fostered by the [front stage]

performance is knowingly contradicted as a matter of course” (1959:112), but is ultimately a “purer”, more

“truthful” presentation of the “self”.

Offstage performances usually occur when individuals “unexpectedly enter the front or the back region

of a particular performance-in-progress” (Goffman, 1959:135). This unexpected intrusion often results in a new

performance emerging, one in which the outsiders do not participate in, but nonetheless are being performed for

by the established audience and performers.

As individuals navigate through these various social stages, they must learn the appropriate

actor/audience skills to be successful within societies. These learned skills quickly become the way in which

individuals present themselves to those they come in contact with. The assumption here is that “when an

individual appears before others he will have many motives for trying to control the impression they receive of

the situation” (Goffman, 1959:15). The means by which the individual gains control of the impression others

receive is through a socially learned performance. This performance is achieved through the presentation of

particular “fronts”; “the expressive equipment of a standard kind intentionally or unwittingly employed by the

individual during his performance” (Goffman, 1959:22).

For Goffman, each front is constructed from “past experience(s) and stereo-typical thinking” (Goffman,

1959:26). Within the process of social interaction, these fronts often “become institutionalized in terms of the

abstract stereotyped expectations to which it gives rise, and tends to take on a meaning and stability apart from

the specific tasks which happened at the time to be performed in its name” (Goffman, 1959:27). These fronts

become “collective representations” of social facts and norms coalescing in socially defined “roles” and

“statuses”. It is the fusion of these fronts that constitute particular “actor traits” which in turn define our social

interactions.

In order for an individual to become an interactive member of society they must learn these traits and

practice them in their social performances. Therefore, if Goffman concluded that human interaction was the

result of learned and performed “actor traits”, then one might also conclude that “traits”, presented in theatrical

performances, could be a reflective and interpretive result of the larger social world and its multiple human

interactions. Stories presented within such theatrical settings would then have important relevance in our

understanding of the social and in our attempts towards change.

16

Life Is Just One Big Campfire:

The Sociology of Storytelling and Ethnographic Presentations

Sociologist Ken Plummer, points to the importance of the “story’ in the field of Sociology, even

proposing a “sociology of stories” where the analyst does not concern themselves “with analyzing the formal

structures of stories… [but rather is] more interested in inspecting the social roles of stories: the ways they are

produced, the ways they are read, the work they perform in the wider social order, how they change, and their

role in the political process” (Plummer, 1995:19). For Plummer, storytelling becomes the way in which

individuals make meaning in the world around them and also how they convey that meaning to those with

whom they interact.

Within any given society, storytelling becomes “the heart of our symbolic interactions” (Plummer,

1995:20). By using “symbols and languages, we are able to reflect upon ourselves and others, and we cannot

but help acting in, on and through the world” (Plummer, 1995:20). Since Sociology is charged with the study of

human interactions, Plummer contends that the field of “sociology is bound up both with obtaining stories and

telling stories” (Plummer, 1995:19). This interaction occurs in three forums: the producer, the coaxer or coach,

and the consumer or audience. While story production does happen on multi-tiered levels, its important not to

see them as separate actions, but rather to understand the flow between actions resulting in “producers

become(ing) consumers whilst consumers become producers” (Plummer, 1995:25) and the coaching that occurs

in between each transition.

Plummer goes on to lay out a detailed argument, asserting the importance of stories within a society,

concluding that:

The storytelling process flows through social acts of domination, hierarchy, marginalisation and

inequality. Some voices…are not only heard more readily than others, but also are capable of

framing the questions, setting the agendas, establishing the rhetoric much more readily than the

others. These social acts become habitual networks of domination congealing around gender,

race, age, economic opportunity and sexuality: certain stories hence are silenced from a saying

(Plummer, 1995:30).

Further on Plummer states that, while stories can be used as formats of domination that perpetuate

hegemony, meanings within the stories are never static or fixed, but change as they undergo transitions between

each forum. As a result, stories do not have to be relegated to the cynic’s corner, assuming that only those with

the institutional power can create and disseminate their stories. Now, anyone has the opportunity to add to the

ideological process of storytelling, and possibly affect social change.

17

Plummer is one of many scholars who are encouraging new literary expressions of research

representation to be produced within Sociology and the greater social sciences (Banks & Banks, 1998). From

Holman’s exploration into autoethnographies (2005) to Denzin’s approach to performance ethnographies

(2003a), the field of qualitative studies is rapidly opening up to a multitude of new research presentations

(Eisner, 1997; Crow, 1988; Bonney, 2000; Diamond & Mullen, 1999; Vincent, 2005; Bagley & Cancienne,

2002). However, to do so one must understand and be able to speak the social language; “the media is the

message” (Plummer, 1995:23).

Plummer’s statement highlights an important shift in contemporary constructions of meaning. It is no

longer enough to present ideas and watch them develop within the tides of social change. In contemporary

American culture it is absolutely necessary to not only understand the media through which we present our

research, but to intentionally choose media formats that are in themselves articulations of the message our

research seeks to present. Mahoney observed, through his research on intimacy construction of gay men living

in Britain, that by approaching our research in a fashion cognizant of the medias we employ we can “unmask

truth claims, actively locate the storytellers in the process and production of the narrative, and allow for a more

creative process in the production of knowledge” (2007:574 emphasis mine).

Denzin (2003b) is a researcher who has fully embraced the use of performative media as a way of

conducting and presenting research data. He refers to this as performance ethnography. According to Denzin, it

is within the medium of performance that one’s ethnographic work can be most successful in promoting social

change, for it is within a performance that knowledge can be disseminated and become accessible to a wider

audience. He states:

Performances deconstruct, or at least challenge the scholarly article as the preferred form of

presentation (and representation). A performance authorizes itself, not through the citation of

scholarly texts, but through its ability to evoke and invoke shared emotional experience and

understanding between performer and audience (Denzin, 2003b:192).

Alexander (2005) suggests that performances of research can become models by which to critically

understand our social interactions—what Hamera (1999) termed, templates of sociality. These performance

templates allow for the audience members to “see others in relation to themselves; to come to know, to

contemplate on how they came to know, to signal ways of being, and to see possibilities for their social

relational orientations and obligations to others” (Alexander, 2005:422). Much in the same way, the

performance itself is not as much about performing for an audience as it is about using the performance medium

“as an act of critically reflecting culture” (Alexander, 2005:423). In short, the performances give space and

direction intended to encourage the audience members to critically reflect on themselves and the culture they

create, always keeping in mind that the goal of each performance is to promote social change.

18

Up until this point, we have been talking about performance techniques used to present elements of a

researcher’s data, but these performances do not have to prescribe to features of theatricality. Instead, the focus

is primarily placed on challenging established modes of knowledge construction and experimenting with

various venues in which meaning is made. There is, however, a category of research presentation that is as

focused on the theatrical features of the performance as with the research being presented; this is loosely

clumped into the category of “ethnodramas” (Rossiter et. al., 2008:133-135).

Ethnodramas are primarily interested in communicating research findings and aim to stay faithfully

representative of the primary research participants (Rossiter et.al., 2008; Mienczakowski, 1995). This form of

presentation is not entirely theatrical in that the performances become a secondary concern. The conventions of

improv are also employed in an attempt to allow audience members moments to intervene in the staged action

and produce different theatrical outcomes (Rossiter et.al, 2008). While ethnodramas do incorporate elements of

the theatre, theatrical conventions are still seen as secondary to the dissemination of the researched data

(Mienczakowski, 1997). This is not the case with “theatrical research-based performances” (Rossiter et.al.,

2008) or “ethnotheatre”; a research style that “employs the theatrical craft and artistic techniques of theatre

production to mount for an audience a live performance event of research participants’ experiences and/or the

researcher’s interpretations of data” (Saldaña, 2005:1).

In ethnotheatre the fundamental goal and purpose of the performance changes from that of ethnodramas.

Ethnotheatre performances seek to showcase cultural meanings that have been discovered through research but,

unlike ethnodrama, they “do not strictly adhere to the data as script” (Rossiter et.al., 2008:136). Instead, the

exploration into artistry and artistic forms becomes the major focus, leading the ethnotheatre category to place

less emphasis on realistic depictions and move towards “the aesthetic and creative power of theatre as an

interpretive, analytic tool” (Rossiter et.al., 2008:136). As such, ethnotheatre strives to be informed by

participant narratives, while still relying on the researchers interpretations and analysis to direct the

performance.

Johnny Saldaña explains that a theatrical performance, informed by thoughtful narratives, can “capture

both the essence and the essentials of a particular individual’s worldview and culture” (Saldaña, 2005:37).

Saldaña notes that this particular style of presentation allows for the researcher to utilize the media tools of

contemporary culture thus, symbolically and aesthetically conveying their findings in a format that promotes

audience engagement and reflection (Saldaña, 2005). Therefore, the ultimate goal of ethnotheatre “is to

investigate a particular facet of the human condition for purposes of adapting those observations and insights

into a performance medium” (Saldaña, 2005:1). Saldaña calls this process “dramatizing the data” (Saldaña,

2005:2). In order to dramatize the data, the researcher must first understand the theatrical conventions of script

writing. Michelle Miller walks through these theatrical conventions in relation to social research and points out

three major features to look for when writing a play.

19

First, the researcher wants to look for themes within the research that can be threaded together into a

“story arch”. These will most likely come from “events, actions, and incidents with enough detail for

enactment” (Miller, 1998:70). Next, the author needs to select which voices they want to be presented within

the production, making sure that the voices illustrate the selected themes of the story arch. Lastly, the character

voices should be based on “clarity of orientation (who, what, where, when), the presence of a complicating

action (a crisis or turning point), and some enactment of results (what finally happened or came out of the

study)” (Miller, 1998:70). Miller maintains that this style of research presentation allows for a type of

“multivocality” to be produced within the research, giving a balance between the voices of the participants and

the researcher. Saldaña also acknowledges the benefit of using multivocality and drawing from multiple

sources, claiming that this approach allows for the researcher/playwright to: “(a) offer triangulation; (b)

highlight disconfirming evidence through juxtaposition; (c) exhibit collective story creation through multiple

perspectives; and/or (d) condense “real time” data for purposes of dramatic economy” (Saldaña, 2005:23).

As I began constructing Pick-Up Artist: The Musical, I started with the three major features of

dramatizing research proposed by Miller. Within this process, I decided to develop the play based on the theme

of hegemonic masculinity and then developed three sub-themes from that: 1) Masculinity as Homophobia; 2)

Masculinity as Feminine Objectification, and 3) Masculinity as Dominance/Control. Then, I created character

voices based on the themes and situated them within a social context (I will develop this process in my methods

section). As I developed the character voices, I drew from multiple sources as suggested by Saldaña. These

sources were taken from the literature surrounding gender studies and in particular research concerning gender

identity (Pollack, 2003; Lorber, 2003), hegemonic masculinity (Donovan, 1998; Messner, 2002), feminine

objectification (Lemoncheck, 1994; Griffin, 1981) and practices used to assert masculine dominance (Messner,

2002; Mullaney, 2007; Pascoe, 2007). Where I differed from both authors—Miller and Saldaña—is in the actual

research I used to inform my play.

Since my research aim was to understand how audience members interpret ideologies presented within

pop-cultural mediums, I chose to animate sociological ideologies into stereotyped character. Both Saldaña and

Miller use transcripts from real life interviews to construct the characters and themes within their plays because

the end goal is to present an ethnographic narrative of the participants. I, however, wanted to explicate the

sociological importance of particular inanimate ideas, presented by social theorists. I also wanted to show the

social implications of adhering to particular stereotypical trends of thought, as suggested by the social theorists.

Therefore, my theatrical construction of research went in an alternate route of information presentation

in that I did not use real life narratives, but rather created fictional characters, based on sociological theories,

and created a fictional story line to inform and situate my themes and ultimately my story arch. I based this

story line on predictive patterns perceived within social research and theories. For the purpose of Pick-Up

Artist: The Musical, I chose to focus on the construction of American hegemonic masculinity and its effects on

20

other expressions of masculinity as well as its implications for the feminine in the context of sexuality and thus,

objectification.

A Musical!?! That’s Not Manly!!!

I have chosen to focus on sociological issues of masculinity and femininity for a variety of reasons. The

first reason stems from my own interactions with the impact certain labels can incite within the development of

one’s identity and self-conceptions. Secondly, I feel that within American society gender constructions are

foundational ways with which we categorize and thus, delineate roles and statuses within our social institutions.

In accordance with this thought is also the idea that gender (along with race) is believed to be a social

construction that we as humans are given at birth. The individual ultimately contends with these constructions

for the duration of their lives. Lastly, but not exhaustively, I feel that gender constructions are prevalently

displayed and asserted within and throughout popular culture and as such have tremendous implications for how

individuals construct their own gender and interact with individuals from other gender constructions.

Masculinity within American society can be seen as a combination of both social and biological

constructions. Our social constructions are created through a series of various symbols that are endowed with

meanings, then reaffirmed by social interactions and finally solidified through the interpretive process (Blumer,

1969). An example of this process, in terms of masculinity, would be my grade-school attempt at intramural

basketball. The symbol of basketball (and sports in general) has been endowed with masculine meaning;

therefore, when I proved incompetent at this “symbol” the other boys around me affirmed the idea that I was

“less-manly” than those deemed more competent. In reaction to this, I bowed out of participating in any further

sporting activities, causing me to interpret my lack of skill as a lack of masculinity.

As these symbols undergo the social process, they get acted out through our institutional structures by

classification and stratification, thus, giving society a method by which to gauge, place, and respond to the

individual. Judith Lorber states, “Gender signs and signals are so ubiquitous that we usually fail to notice them-

unless they are missing or ambiguous. Then we are uncomfortable until we have successfully placed the other

person in a gender status…” (2003: 96). These symbolic distinctions are further affirmed by biological traits,

which have been dichotomized into either “male” or “female” classifications. This was in part due to the

“gendering” of the sex hormone started in 1932 with the First Conference on Standardization of Sex Hormones.

As Anne Fausto-Sterling points out, “male” and “female” hormones are present in both sexes and are

not isolated only to the development of reproductive tissues, but can be seen in an array of diverse functions

(Fausto-Sterling, 2000). Unfortunately, social discourse has been so immersed in these gendered descriptions of

“male” and “female” hormones that many stereotypes feel scientifically justified in their assertions. Statements

such as “Boys are just more aggressive”, “You throw like a girl!”, or even as absurd as “Men are from Mars,

Women from Venus” all take their cues from this assumption that men and women are biologically on opposite

21

ends of the spectrum. It is these social and biological constructions that lay the foundation for how men “do

gender” (Lorber, 2003: 96) in their public and private lives.

Adam, a young boy coming to terms with his adolescence, described his interaction with masculinity as

if he were wearing a mask. He said, “I get a little down … but I’m very good at hiding it. It’s like I wear a

mask. Even when kids call me names or taunt me, I never show them how much it crushes me inside. I keep it

all in” (Pollack, 2003:220). We all wear some form of a gendered mask. Forged in the fires of adolescent

taunting and media induced imagery, the degree to which our masks match socially elevated norms determines

the degree to which we are accepted within societies “in-group”. While the feminine mask carries with it

numerous detriments and deserves its own series of musical representations, in Pick-Up Artist: The Musical I

chose to focus on the masculine mask as it not only seems to be underlined with its own distinct volcanic hue

just waiting to erupt, but my social vantage point (being a “man”) gives me more natural insights and

experiences to draw from in creating characters and situations. It is through these characters and situations that I

explore the problematic nature of maintaining the masculine mask for a prolonged period of time.

Michael Messner describes this danger: “learning early to mask one’s vulnerability behind displays of

toughness may help boys survive on the street, but it can also contribute to boys (and, later, men) having

difficulties in developing and maintaining emotional connection with others” (Messner, 2002:51). “Real men

don’t cry” is a mantra that we hear echoed throughout 20th Century United States and reiterated by the bullet

Rambo takes to the shoulder or the strong veneer Bruce Willis maintains when he removes shards of glass from

his bare feet. Fight through the pain to finish the task, whether that task is war or work, real or imaginative, the

principle of a stoic statue still rings true for many. “As the man learns to suppress his own self-empathy, to

endure pain and injury to get a job done, his body is experienced not as a human self to be nurtured and cared

for but as a machine or tool to be used to get a job done” (Messner, 2002:61). This stoic emotionality pairs

comfortably with the ideas of individuality and superior strength exulted within American culture. The true

masculine man is self-made, heroic, powerful in his athleticism, and above all profoundly heterosexual. Any

semblance of femininity is grounds for homo-stigmatation and ultimately marginalisation from society. This

social construction and expectation creates a type of “frustrated masculinity”.

By viewing himself as a machine and ignoring needs present in all human beings for nurturing care, the

man immersed in the ideology of hegemonic masculinity can quickly find himself becoming alienated from not

only elements of his being, but also from the larger society. Only in temporary releases of the frustrated

masculine can the individual find moments of reprieve from alienation. So how does the individual find release

from such stringent societal expectations? How does the frustrated masculine get satisfied? One answer might

be found in public and private volcanic irruptions of hegemonic masculine assertion and domination.

22

Release of Frustrated Masculinity: Violence

For those men who reach the threshold of societal expectations and feel ready to pop under the pressure,

society has allowed for two releases of the frustrated masculine; violence and pornography. In the book, Taking

the Field: Women, Men and Sports, Michael A. Messner looks intently at the intrinsic affirmation of violence

present within male dominated sports, or the “institutional center” (baseball, football, basketball) (Messner,

2002:xvii). For Messner, this public affirmation of aggression allows frustrated masculinity to be released while

still upholding social expectations of the masculine. Since this aggression is often in the realm of the public,

much of this voyeurism still needs to be bridled and controlled. This is often done through what Kaufman calls

the “Triad of Men’s Violence”: violence against women, against other men and against themselves (Messner,

2002:30).

Each act of violence recapitulates hegemonic masculinity, while at the same time allowing for

temporary release of the frustrated masculine. Messner (2002) observed that each type of violence allows for

the individual to bond into a fraternal group by asserting masculinity through the degradation of a “feminized

other”, competing with each other for status, and suppressing any physical and social traits deemed “feminine”.

First, violence against women asserts dominance while placing the individual’s masculine traits high

above any possible feminine ones. Through such violence, men can reaffirm the “assumption that they, as men,

should be in control- of their sexual partners, of the situation, of themselves” (Messner, 2002:45). Mullaney

(2007) acknowledges the role that hegemonic masculinity can play within men’s violence towards their intimate

partners. She uses Arthur Brittan’s term “masculinism” to unpack the foundational ideologies that promote a

patriarchal worldview of social arrangements, which, ultimately lead to a justifying of “men’s domination of

women” (Mullaney, 2007:243).

Mullaney conducted in-depth interviews with fourteen men in state-mandated “battering programs”.

During the interviews she found that a common theme arose, centering around a need, amongst the abusers, to

re-normalize their actions by resituating blame on something or someone else. Either blaming outside forces

(like alcohol or stress) or the victims of the abuse, the men ascribing to this extreme form of physical

domination over women negotiated their masculinity by aggressively confronting those elements in their lives

that they deemed as feminine. By elevating their masculine traits in hyper-aggressive manners (above those

feminine traits of their partners), the abusive men felt that they could gain the control that the ideology of

hegemonic masculinity claims they should maintain (Mullaney, 2007).

Violence against other men is similar to violence against women in that it asserts dominance while

affirming the individual’s masculine traits. However, it also claims heterosexuality in often very homoerotic

ways; whereas, violence against women asserts heterosexuality through power and control (Messner, 2002:48-

55). In many ways, this violence against other men is simply an expression of social homophobia and as such

23

American masculinity’s key feature becomes that of homophobia; “men’s fear of other men” (Kimmel,

2003:106).

In hegemonic masculinity, the homosexual man represents a “penetrated masculinity” which symbolizes

“a masculinity devoid of power” (Pascoe, 2005:124). As such it is relegated to the lower rungs of the social

hierarchy alongside the feminine (also penetrated and devoid of power). Violence against other men serves to

establish masculinity for the victor and demote the victim to the status of the “feminized other”. Both the

feminine and homosexual get stigmatized as a weaker version of “man” and thus, get forced to occupy a deviant

social status of subordination to socially accepted masculine expressions4.

Boys are often raised to fear two things, (1) that we will become too girly and (2) that we will become

gay. In many ways, these fears are viewed as one in the same in that homosexuality is automatically associated

with femininity. So to say that a man is “too girly” is to imply that he is also gay, and to say that a man is gay is

to imply that he is by nature “too girly”. In order to combat these fears, we are taught to relieve such fears by

attacking others (Kivel, 2007:148).

Feminizing other men is an important element in group processes of dominance bonding because by

determining, “that one or more members of the male group are … the symbolic debased and degraded

feminized ‘other’ … the group members bond and feel that their status as ‘men’ is safely ensured” (Messner,

2002:25). It is this social violence towards the devalued feminine and assumed homosexual that helps to

maintain and perpetuate hegemonic masculine assumptions.

Lastly, violence against one’s self articulates the notion of masculine individuality and superior strength.

The main tenet within this form of masculine violence is “control”: control over yourself and your feelings as

well as control over other members within society. Paul Kivel points to the intensity of such social expectations

surrounding masculinity in his article and diagram; “The Act-Like-a-Man Box” (2007), claiming that boys are

trained from birth to ignore and deny any feelings of “love, excitement, sadness, confusion, anger, curiosity,

pain, frustration, humiliation, shame, grief, resentment, loneliness, low self-worth, and self-doubt” (2007:148).

(See Appendix A)

Through this practice, men learn how to assert control over their physical selves, the emotions they

experience, and the relationships they develop. By denying such expressive feelings, men are able to maintain

4 I based this statement on Goffman’s exploration into the stigmatized individual. The term stigma refers to an attribute possessed by an individual that is seen as discrediting for them, while at the same time creditable for those not possessing said attributes. As the individual enters into the presence of a social group they are immediately defined by a “virtual social identity”. This identity is “the character we impute to the individual … made in potential retrospect” (Goffman, 1963:2). When it is acknowledged that the virtual social self contains an attribute that is not only different than the group to which they have entered in, but is also “of a less desirable kind”, then the individual gets “reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one” (Goffman, 1963:3). Often the stigmatized begins to adopt the beliefs held by the dominant group about themselves and thus reinforce their stigmatization. As the process continues the stigmatized eventually gets cut out of “society and from himself so that he stands a discredited person facing an unaccepting world” (Goffman, 1963:19). As individuals maneuver within a specified schematic of gender expressions, those deviating too close to the feminine side experience this process of stigmatization and as such get confined to subordinated or peripheral positions within society.

24

and reaffirm social assumptions of their masculinity: (1) “expressing emotion and crying … are linked to

femininity” (2) “masculinity is linked with competence and achievement” and (3) “masculinity requires men to

be tough and self-reliant” (Emslie et al., 2006:2247).

While each form of violence allows for some level of voyeuristic release, its public limitations often

leave the expectations inherent within hegemonic masculinity to remain frustrated. However, within the private

sphere, voyeuristic endeavors can be used to covertly relapse the frustrated masculinity (even if only for a short

while), usually outside the walls of public constraints.

Release of Frustrated Masculinity: Pornography

Within contemporary mainstream American culture there are a multitude of private voyeuristic releases

available to males. Each release, from lingerie advertisements to prostitution, situates itself within the

sexualization of feminine objects as a way of asserting heterosexual masculinity. These forms of release

function by keeping femininity in a detached and submissive position in relation to the individual’s masculinity.

This allows for the man, seeking voyeuristic affirmation of their masculinity, a venue through which they can

affirm and recapitulate the elements of their masculinity that are socially acceptable and subjugate those

elements that are seen as inferior. For the purpose of my research, I have chosen to focus on a newly redefined

and emergent voyeuristic venue made available in contemporary American culture: pornography5.

I have chosen to look at the implications of pornography on the development of masculine expression

for three reasons. First, with the advent of the world-wide-web, Americans have gained an increase in their

access to internet-pornography and thus, cultural scholars have seen an increase in pornographic use. Due to the

intentional marketing focus directed towards males, scholars have also seen an increase in masculine

consumption of pornographic material. Next, pornographic material maintains an unique position in the

formation and reassertion of hegemonic masculinity and feminine objectification. This is the result of its

specific subject matter, focusing on sexuality (an arena of intentional heterosexual masculine assertion) and its

primary market being American males. Finally, by exploring the implications of pornographic ideologies and

then using the findings to inform my construction of Pick-Up Artist: The Musical, I have been able to

implement the principles developed within neo-Gramscian cultural studies by using pop-culture to confront

pop-culture. I will now explore each of these three reasons in greater detail.

Pornography in the U.S. has become one the most commercially successful industries to date. It is

estimated that “the industry grossed eight billion dollars in 1996” (Kern et.al., 2004:75) and between 1997 and

1998 pornography sites on the web had grown from 900 to between 20,000-30,000 (Kern et.al., 2004:76). A

5 When I use the word “pornography” I am referring to the mainstream heterosexual pornography genre. This genre is sometimes referred to as “hardcore” and is openly available to any of-age person within America. This genre also is an explicit depiction of sex between men and women, meaning that “the sexual activity is not simulated; these videos are a record of sex between the performers” (Jensen, 2004:1).

25

study done in 2004 showed that “males were more than six times as likely to use cyber porn than females”

(Kern et.al., 2004:85). These statistics show that the social meanings of masculinity and femininity that are

being portrayed in pornographic material have their strongest direct effect on men and how they construct their

gendered identities as well as how they view femininity.

In general, pornographic material is defined as any “verbal or pictorial material which represents or

describes sexual behavior that is degrading or abusive to one or more of the participants in such a way as to

endorse the degradation” (Longino, 1994:155). Robert Jensen conducted a qualitative study of self-identified

pornography users and concluded “pornography was an important factor in shaping a male-dominant view of

sexuality” (2003:285). Within this male-dominant view of sexuality, men are often taught how to numb their

feelings through graphic language and imagery that initially horrifies and disgusts them, but eventually

overpowers (Griffin, 1981:83). Through a review of the literature concerning pornography, I have found five

primary effects pornography can have on the individual’s construction of a gendered identity:

1. It produces all addictive activities; pornography is progressive. It will demand increasing levels of

intensity and new materials to get the same effect (Philaretou et.al., 2005:158; Griffiths, 2001).

2. It reinforces the lies and myths about sex, women and masculinity (Griffen, 1981:2-7; Jensen, 2003;

2004; Longino, 1994).

3. It isolates the individual from others with a false sense of intimacy (Philaretou et.al., 2005:162)

4. It creates a sense of shame and doubt about one’s masculinity (Philaretou et.al., 2005:159-161).

5. It adversely affects a man’s ability to perform sexually with a real person (Philaretou et.al., 2005:162-

164; Jensen, 2003; Payne, 1995).

Jensen has linked pornography to violence against women, claiming that while pornography may not be

the direct cause of rape, it can be implicated in perpetuating and blurring the lines of invitation, making rape

more psychologically accessible for individuals (Jensen, 2003; Jensen, 2004). He cites a woman’s recounting of

her rape experience in the Silbert and Pines Study where she remembered the man beating her and saying, “I

know all you bitches, you’re no different; you’re like all of them. I seen it in all the movies. You love being

beaten” (Jensen, 2003:270). Jensen continues to list case study after case study where both men and women

acknowledge the influence pornography has had on their individual experiences with rape and sexual violence.

Pornography reduces the feminine to an object of conquest and places the masculine in an aggressive

and dominant position over her by numbing the emotions through the construction of a sexual fantasy. It is

through the numbing of emotions and becoming engulfed in pornographic fantasies that the individual can

finally embrace all ideological assumptions about hegemonic masculinity. At this stage men are no longer

conflicted by the feminine, but dominant over it and completely captivated by the expectations of hegemonic

masculinity.

26

Collins notes the intersection between pornography and violence stating that “[i]n contemporary

pornography women are objectified through being portrayed as pieces if meat, as sexual animals awaiting

conquest” (2000:135). When the objectifier can reduce the female subject to a sub-human status, they become

more able to exploit the individual. By stripping away humanity from the feminine object, the objectifier

maintains a position of superiority and thus, develops a perceived “right” to use the object as is deemed best.

Collins states that, in this moment, the objectifier has given themselves permission to use any form a

gratification necessary to fulfill their desires. It is this permission for violence that pornography promotes.

As I mentioned earlier, the final reason I have chosen to focus on pornography is because of the

opportunity it has given me to use pop-culture as a means of critiquing pop-culture. The process through which

I did this can be explained using a variation of what Omi and Winant call “racial projects” (1987). Racial

projects serve as mediators between the abstract ideologies existent within the collective consciousness of a

society and the actual implementation of those ideas into institutions and practices. These “projects” can be

anything that reaffirms an ideological stance, whether that is interpersonal conversations or Presidential

addresses. This can be further articulated using Omi and Winant’s diagram of Racial Formation Theory:

Cultural Beliefs Structural/Historical Phenomena

(Language; Values; (Institutional/Organizational;

Norms; Assumptions) Routine ways of acting out

the social)

Racial Projects

(Large-scale public action;

Interpersonal action;

Political activity)

By applying these principles to the concept of gender we see that our ways of “doing” gender develop

through very much the same formative process. Thus, in this vein, I am using the term “gender projects” to refer

to large or small-scale public action that serves to reinforce “common sense” assumptions about gender and

more specifically, masculinity. By looking at the implications and influence mentioned earlier about

pornographic material we can see how pornography is used as a gender project.

When we understand the importance of gender projects to promote ideologies that can negatively affect

individuals, we can begin to use these gender projects as counter attacks, promoting new ideological

27

viewpoints. Infusing Pick-Up Artist: The Musical with researched implications of pornography on masculine

expression and feminine objectification was my way of creating a gender project that challenged the established

ways of performing masculinity, and thus, perceiving the feminine.

Through this process, I was able to participate in a neo-Gramscian approach to popular culture. Neo-

Gramscian cultural studies pose that popular culture is the result of resistance and incorporation (Storey,

1998:127). Subcultures are able to take elements from mainstream cultural productions and reinterpret them in

ways that they were originally not intended to be interpreted. After the reinterpretation, the subculture

rearticulates the original production “to produce oppositional meanings” (Storey, 1998:126).

As I presented ideas about masculine dominance in relation to their sexuality, I used the icon of the

pornographic female to represent the process through which men are taught to objectify and ultimately discard

women after sexual conquest. In doing so, I was able to present an oppositional understanding of masculine and

feminine images in pornography. Instead of the man represented as a sexual champion, he is depicted as a

colonizer of female sexuality. Instead of the woman as a peripheral object only acknowledged in relation to her

sexual function, she is developed into a three dimensional character, with hopes, dreams, and expectations on

equal footing as her male counterparts.

Concluding the Conclusions of Other Concluders

We live in society. I know this idea sounds basic and uninsightful for a thesis project, but let it linger for

a while. We live in society. When we are making decisions at the grocery store, we live in society. When we are

having a casual conversation with friends over coffee, we live in society. When we sit down to read a magazine,

newspaper, or thesis, we live in society. When we are all alone, at home, in our cars, or camping on a remote

mountain, we still live in society. There is no escaping it. Therefore, it is important to be aware of this constant

in human life and equally important to not become passive agents within our social situations.

Blumer and Goffman showed that we cannot be passive social agents, simply at the mercies of the social

tides. We are constantly active social participants (even when we are not aware of it), and we are always

involved in the production and sustaining of social meanings. Plummer described how these social meanings are

often created through the stories we tell each other. In fact, it is through this process of social storytelling that

we define our individual identities and thus our expectations of those around us.

Once we understand the use of storytelling and its impact on social definitions, we can become

intentional with the stories we chose to tell and the formats through which we tell them. Denzin understood this

dynamic and proposed the use of performance mediums, such as theatre, to situate researchers within the

mainstream flow of social discourse and change. Along with Denzin, Saldaña and Miller both gave practical

strategies for creating sociologically informed theatre productions.

28

In order to create this piece of socio-theatre, I chose to focus on the issue of hegemonic masculinity and

its implications for the social feminine. Messner showed how masculinity is often reproduced and affirmed

through various acts of violence, towards other men, women, and towards themselves. These acts of violence

serve to maintain the masculine position by asserting dominance over “feminized others”. Another form of

sustaining hegemonic masculinity is through the gender project of pornography. As the saliency of

pornographic images continues to grow, masculine expression in relation to feminine sexuality becomes more

defined in terms of dominance and control. The result is a hegemonic masculinity centered on the subordination

of feminine expressions.

In the next chapter, I will outline the ways in which I went about constructing my own gender project:

Pick-Up Artist: The Musical. The end goal being to promote new discourses about gender and ultimately

present oppositional images for the hegemonic masculine.

29

CHAPTER 4 Action: The Construction of “Pick-Up Artist: The Musical”

I sat stunned, paralyzed by the visual imagery being depicted before my very eyes. At first I thought it

was a farce, a comical approach at investigating reality television, like The Office. Maybe another Milgram

experiment constructed to showcase the willingness of individual submission to authority. “A practical joke!” I

thought. “That’s it, it must be a practical joke! Where’s Ashton Kutcher!?!” Ashton never showed. VH1’s realty

television program, The Pick-Up Artist continued for the whole season espousing ideological imperatives on

how men should present themselves and how they should perceive women as sexual objects of conquest. Both

ideologies showed to be equally problematic as each male participant proved weekly their inability to live up to

the hegemonic standard presented by their mentor, Mystery. This T.V. show both frightened and inspired me.

From there I embarked on an exploration into the functions of pop-culture and the meanings of masculinity

within the discourse of the mainstream American culture.

In this chapter, I will outline the process and method I used in my creation of Pick-Up Artist: The

Musical. I will expound on the themes surrounding masculinity (Masculinity as Homophobia; Masculinity as

Feminine Objectification; and Masculinity as Dominance/Control) by using excerpts from the play and I will

show how I used these themes to construct character voices and plot lines for the play. I will also describe the

use of drama as a theatrical tool in the explication of classical social theories. I will then conclude with

describing why I chose to end the play without a typical ending.

Playtime: Let’s Give ’Em Something To Talk About

Before I started writing Pick-Up Artist: The Musical, I knew that I wanted to explore the construction of

identities through the musical format, and in particular masculinity. VH1’s The Pick-Up Artist, in part inspired

this desired focus in my play. In this gladiatorial showcase, the viewer got introduced to a group of young men

who were stigmatized as losers, geeks, or socially inept. These men were then placed in a house and taught how

to become men that women would not only like, but men who could sexually conquer a woman through the

tools of seduction. Bare in mind that this was no parody, but ideas that were earnestly believed and embodied

by the mentors of this Pick-Up Artist program. From this corporate ethnography, I saw young men become

resocialized and transformed from guys I could relate to, to stock character types that you might find in an

Acting 101 monologue book. I found this process fascinating and decided to use the idea of a documentary to

situate my play.

Using the documentary as a template for my play allowed for me to clearly define a plot for the play and

thus, create an order and structure by which to communicate and develop the themes I wished to express.

Structure is essential for any play in that a play lacking structure will be “nothing more than random events that

will fail to communicate specific thoughts to anyone but the writer” (Downs & Russin, 2004:55). Seeing as my

30

thesis hinges on the idea of communicating thoughts and ideas to a larger audience, it was important that I did

not throw together something that didn’t stay attentive to this principle. By making the plot follow that of a

documentary in which young men are trained to become “real men”, I was also able to introduce two

contrasting characters for each theme that arose. This not only showed the stereotype and its implications, but

also showed the process through which individuals come to embody such characteristics.

Grounded in the theoretical idea that, as social beings we categorize individuals based on the product of

the interplay between attributes and stereotypes (Goffman, 1963), I decided that my next course of action would

be to establish themes based on the stereotypes existent within the ideology of hegemonic masculinity. Through

the use of research literature on gender I came up with three primary themes: (1) Masculinity as Homophobia,

(2) Masculinity as Feminine Objectification, and (3) Masculinity as Dominance/Control. Each theme was

placed within the context of sexuality and in particular the individual’s attempt at maintaining a perceived

heterosexuality. I have narrowed these themes in this manner for the sake of brevity within the play, but also

because much of the literature I reviewed noted the importance of heterosexual-ness in affirming hegemonic

masculinity.

Below I will walk through the steps of how I created character stereotypes based on these three

masculine themes, as well as the conflict and repercussions that these characters encountered as they

maneuvered through various masculine expressions. I will do this by using excerpts from the play itself (for a

full version of the play see Appendix E – quite possibly the longest Appendix to a paper ever!).

Masculinity as Homophobia

This theme came from Messner’s conversation concerning violence towards other men. Messner equates

homophobia to the process of adhering two objects together using Elmer’s glue. As the glue dries and adheres

to individual items, it also begins to act as a barrier, never allowing the two individual items to ever truly touch.

As male groups participate in homophobic discourse and actions they bond “together as part of the in-group (we

are men, they are faggots), it also places clear limits on the extent to which boys and men can make themselves

vulnerable to one another (don’t get to close, emotionally or physically, or you will make yourself vulnerable)”

(Messner, 2002:54-55). The result of this intensified male-to-male relationship is an overtly hyper-aggressive

masculinity, seemingly on the verge of exploding in fits of violence.

As I worked with this idea as well as the concept of “fag discourse” discussed by C.J. Pascoe (2005)

and Michael S. Kimmel (1994), I ended up creating two character voices used to represent these concepts:

Manifesto and Peter. Manifesto is the completed embodiment of this theme and Peter becomes his protégé. The

scene below is the first time that Peter and Manifesto interact. Right from the start, Manifesto is clear in

establishing his role as the dominant male. He accomplishes this through various put downs and jabs, but

becomes most successful when he uses “fag discourse”. This is done by feminizing another male through using

31

words that challenge an assumed heterosexuality, making homosexual stigmatization “a weapon with which to

temporarily assert one’s masculinity by denying it to others. Thus ‘fag’ becomes a symbol around which

contests of masculinity take place” (Pascoe, 2005:133).

ACT  I,  Scene  4:  Appendix  E,  p.10-­‐11  

MANIFESTO  

You've  gotta  dress  the  part!  (to  Peter)    

You,  what's  your  name!?!  

 

PETER  

(looking  around)  

Who  ...  me!?!  

 

MANIFESTO  

Yes,  you  butterball!  What  is  your  name?  

 

PETER  

(standing  up)  

Um  ...  Peter.  

 

MANIFESTO  

 (mockingly)    

Well  "Um  Peter,"  where  did  you  get  your  clothes?    

The  "I'm  a  dumb  ass  section  of  K-­‐Mart?  

 

PETER  

 No  ...  Target.  

 

 MANIFESTO  

 Well,  you  missed  it  ...  the  target  that  is.  I  mean  your  clothes  cry  out  "I'm  a  momma's  boy,  please  kick  my  ass!"  You  

want  to  be  respected.  You've  got  to  dress  respectable.  Why  am  I  even  talking  to  you  about  respect?  Look  at  you!  

You  don't  even  respect  yourself  enough  to  loose  that  pudge  you  call  a  waist.  Storing  up  for  the  winter?  

 

PETER    

I  never  thought  I  was  overweight?  

 

MANIFESTO  

32

You  aren't  if  you're  content  being  a  loner  the  rest  of  your  life.  

 

Peter  starts  to  cry,  but  tries  to  hide  it.  

 Eddie  notices  and  hands  Peter  a  handkerchief.  Manifesto  sees.  

Are  you  crying?  What  a  girl!  

 

EDDIE  

Leave  him  alone!  (to  Peter)  

You  OK  Peter?  

 

MANIFESTO  

Oh,  I'm  sorry.  I  didn't  know  you  guys  were  an  item.  (to  Peter).    

I  didn't  mean  to  piss  off  your  boyfriend,  Peter.  

 

PETER  

 He  is  not  my  ...  we're  not  ...    

(to  Eddie)  Leave  me  alone!  

 

MANIFESTO  

I  don't  care!  I  just  want  to  know  if  you  actually  want  to  learn  the  things  I  have  to  teach  you,  or  are  you  going  to  run  

away  and  cry  each  time  I  say  something  that  hurts  your  pretty  little  feelings?  

 

PETER  

I  want  to  learn  ...  I  do  really  want  to  learn.

As a fraternal bond grew between the two characters, they began to participate in homophobic talk about

the other male characters, thus solidifying them as the “in-group”. However, this bond also served as a barrier

between the two characters ever establishing a substantial friendship. As a result, when conflict arose between

Peter and Manifesto, they found themselves battling between each other for the dominant position within their

grouping.

ACT  II  Scene  5:  Appendix  E,  p.72-­‐73  

 

PETER  

Leave  me  alone  Mani!  This  isn't  your  fight!    

(yelling  at  someone  off  stage)    

33

Yea  you!  I'll  take  both  of  you  on,    

you  little  pansy-­‐ass  punks.  Come  on!  

 

MANIFESTO  

Calm  down  Bulldog.    

This  isn't  a  fight  you  want.  

 

PETER  

What,  now  you're  afraid  of  two  punk  ass  Mexicans?  (sarcastically)  Oh,  sorry.    

I  didn't  mean  to  offend  you.  

 

MANIFESTO  

Listen  a  good  fight  is  one  you  can  walk  away  from.    

Trust  me,  this  is  not  a  good  fight.  

 

PETER  

Oh,  I  get  it.  You  don't  want  me  to  kick  your  boyfriend's  ass.  You  guys  have  some  hot  homo-­‐Latin  love  affair  going  

on.  

 

MANIFESTO  

Watch  it.  

 

PETER  

Why?  What  are  you  going  to  do  to  me?  

 

Manifesto  and  Peter  give  each  other  a  look,    

each  one  waiting  for  the  next  to  make  the  first  move.  

 

PETER  CONT.’  

That's  what  I  thought.    

You  are  nothing  but  a  faking  queer.  

 

MANIFESTO  

Be  careful  boy.  

 

PETER  

34

(looking  Manifesto  straight  in  the  eyes)    

Fucking  Faggot.  

 

Music  starts.  At  this  Manifesto  swings  at  Peter  but  misses.  

Peter  quickly  swings  back  and  continuously  hits  Manifesto.  

Manifesto  falls  to  the  ground  and  Peter  starts  hitting  and  kicking  him  while  he  is  on  the  ground.  During  the  beating  

Peter  is  yelling  at  Manifesto  and  calling  him  names.  Eddie  enters  S.R.  and  sees  what  is  going  on.  Eddie  quickly  runs  

over  to  pull  Peter  off  of  Manifesto.  Without  thinking  Peter  swings  around  and  hits  Eddie  to  the  ground.  Music  stops.  

This  makes  Peter  pause  as  Eddie  looks  at  him  in  shock.  

 

EDDIE  

What  has  happened  to  you?  

 

Eddie  runs  off  stage  Manifesto  starts  to  moan.  Peter  walks  back  over  to  him,  looks  at  him  in  disgust.  

 

PETER  

You  fucking  little  girl.  

 

Music  starts  up  again.    

(song;  “Cell  Blocked  By  A  Cheap  Shot”)  

Manifesto  starts  to  get  up.  Peter  stands  over  Manifesto  straddling  him  in  the  same  way  that  Drake  did  with  Candy,  

gives  one  final  punch  and  Manifesto  falls  limp.  A  siren  is  herd  as  the  Announcer  rushes  on  stage  dressed  as  a  police  

officer.  

Kimmel states “violence is often the single most evident marker of manhood” (2003:104). The previous

scene becomes more intense and volatile as the male-to-male relationship becomes more and more entrenched

in this hegemonic discourse of homophobia. As the scene develops, each character is trying to reposition

themselves into an acceptable masculinity, but to do so they must feminize the other. The result is a violent

climax. Sociologist, Tommi Avicolli describes the power of the label “faggot” in promoting and encouraging

violence:

More fights started over someone calling someone else a faggot than anything else. The word had

power. It toppled the male ego, shattered his delicate façade, and violated the image he projected. He

was tough. Without feeling. Faggot cut through all this. It made him vulnerable. Feminine. And

feminine was the worst thing he could possibly be. Girls were fine for fucking, but no boy in his right

35

mind wanted to be like them. A boy was the opposite of a girl. He was not feminine. He was not feeling.

He was not weak (1986:140).

In the previous scene, I also wanted to implement the use of racism in service to hegemonic masculinity

and sexism. While race is not the primary focus of the play, it is important to note the intersectionality between

race and gender. Patricia Hill Collins highlights the importance of understanding both race and gender in the

context of sexuality, claiming that sexuality becomes a “specific site of intersectionality where intersecting

oppressions meet … This is because all systems of oppression rely on harnessing the power of the erotic”

(2000:128).

I played with this intersectional connection between race and gender by creating the character voice of

Manifesto as Cuban. I chose to make him Cuban so I could also introduce the idea of a bipolar American view

of race (white/black). According to author Clara E. Rodriguez (2000), the Latino/Hispanic population of

America has not only been misunderstood, but also very underrepresented when dealing with issues of race.

There are more races in the U.S. than just white and black and each of these diverse racial groups have their

own unique social experiences. Not only do they have distinctly different experiences from other racial groups,

but they can also experience race differently from those in their racial group dependent on their geographic and

contextual locations.

Rodriguez (2000) claims that there are certain dimensions that are fundamental to the Latino U.S. life.

First off, Latinos get assigned a myriad of different “racial” classifications throughout their lives. Their

multiplicity of “skin-tone” and how their “color” is perceived very often determines what “race’ they are

endowed with (all in relation to their “white-ness”). I used this idea of fluctuating racial categorization by

having all the other male characters within the play constantly misname Manifesto’s race and then blatantly

disregarding the mistake, claiming that each classification is the “same thing”. Examples of this can be seen in

the following scenes: Act I, Scene 4; Act I, Scene 5; Act II, Scene 2; Act II, Scene 5. (See Appendix E)

However, the individual is not completely powerless in this identity construction, but rather, Rodriguez

(2000) claims, the Latinos themselves can also participate in shifting their racial classifications based on a

variety of circumstances. These classifications become immediate for the individual, provisional and dependent

on the context it is in, and can be a contested classification, which very often leads to another classification. In

Act I, Scene 6, I had Manifesto participate in this practice and then get called on it by Peter:

ACT  I,  Scene  5:  Appendix  E,  p.24-­‐25  

MANIFESTO  

(hitting  Peter  on  the  head)  

You’ve  got  to  change  the  way  you  think  man!  

36

 

Music  starts.  (Song;  “GET  IN  YOUR  MASCULINE”)  

 

MANIFESTO  (CONT’D)  

When  I  was  just  a  young  boy  off  the  coast  of  Peru  ...  

 

PETER  

I  thought  you  were  Cuban?  

 

MANIFESTO  

Quiet  man.  I’m  trying  to  reminisce.    

(singing)  

WHEN  I  WAS  JUST  A  YOUNG  BOY    

OFF  THE  COAST  OF  CUBA  ...  

BUT  WE  CALLED  IT  “LITTLE  PERU.”  

 

I also chose to use the racial category of Cuban because it allowed for me to dabble a bit into the use of

“machismo”, to both affirm and discount the masculinity of Latin men. The term machismo refers to a Latin

man’s “virility and dominance” (Stobbe, 2005:109-110) and is often “associated with the negative

characteristics of sexism, chauvinism, and hypermasculinity” (Arciniega and Anderson, 2008:19). While in

some ways this extreme expression of masculinity can be seen as the purest form of hegemonic masculinity,

because of the “foreign-ness” ascribed to machismo actions, it actually serves as a tool for normalizing the

European expressions of hegemonic masculinity and thus perverting the Latino expression resulting in a

subjugation of the Latino masculinity to a more benign European masculinity. This process rests on the caveat

that European masculinity is the correct masculinity and other foreign masculinities are subordinate to it. It is

because of this expectation that Peter eventually seeks to position himself in dominance over Manifesto by

using fag discourse and ultimately violence in the form of homophobia.

Masculinity as Feminine Objectification

ACT  I,  Scene  7:  Appendix  E,  p.31  

 

CANDY  

I  SEE  MY  OBJECTS  ARE  NOW  MAKING  YOU  SWEAT  

I’VE  BEEN  AN  OBJECT  SINCE  THE  MOMENT  WE  MET  

 

37

My goal was to highlight the process of sexual objectification, as defined by Linda Lemoncheck; “the

sex object is treated as less than a moral equal by her objectifier… lowered in status not merely from that of

person to object, but from that of moral equal to moral subordinate” (Lemoncheck, 1994:205). The result was

three character voices representing the various ways in which femininity is viewed from the vantage point of

hegemonic masculinity in relation to sexuality.

Since the play centers on the male characters learning how to become successful in their sexual

relationships, I made the feminine character of Candy take on two polar opposite characteristics. When the men

view her as a potential sexual conquest she is seen as a sexually objectified character and limited in her dialogue

and interactions with the other characters on stage. She is literally a scenic object until one of the male

characters wants something from her. However, in ACT II, Candy starts to develop deeper character traits as

she begins a relationship with Drake, the cyber-dork who has been taught that women are at their best when you

get what you want from them and then leave. As Drake and Candy develop a relationship, and Candy becomes

more and more of a “real person”, conflict arises between the multifaceted person of Candy and the masculine

assumptions Drake has learned about what he should expect from a girl like Candy. This scene picks up

following Candy’s depiction of Drake’s behavior as adorable:

ACT  II,  Scene  4:  Appendix  E,  p.61-­‐63  

 

DRAKE  

ADORABLE!?!  Great  maybe  tomorrow  I  could    

pass  a  note  to  one  of  your  friends  to    

see  if  maybe  you’d  like  to  go  steady  with  me.    

I’m  a  man  Candy,  not  a  fluffy  Teddy  Bear.    

You  don’t  tell  a  guy  he  is  “adorable”  unless    

you  want  him  to  get  his  ass  kicked!    

I’ve  been  getting  laughed  at  enough  as  it  is.  

 

CANDY  

You  don’t  have  to  be  so  mean  about  it.    

Look  I’m  sorry  Drake  ...  I  just  meant  ...  

 

DRAKE  

(interrupting  her)    

I  told  you!  It’s  not  Drake  anymore.    

It  is  DOC!  

38

   

CANDY  

OK.  I  just  keep  forgetting.    

I  liked  Drake.  

 

DRAKE  

So  I  guess  this  means  we’re  not  going  to  do  it.  

 

CANDY  

Do  it?  

 

DRAKE  

You  know,  have  sex.    

When  Peter  and  Mani  find  out  I  blew  it  ...    

Man  they’ll  never  let  me  live  this  down.  

 

CANDY  

You  told  Peter  and  Mani  that    

we  were  going  to  have  sex  tonight!?!    

That  sort-­‐of  stuff  is  personal  Drake.  

 

DRAKE  

What  does  it  matter  anyway.    

You  never  planned  on  having  sex    

with  me  to  begin  with.  I  must  be  too  adorable.  

 

CANDY  

I  hadn’t  thought  about  that  stuff  yet.    

We’ve  only  known  each  other  for  a  couple  weeks.  

   

DRAKE  

But,  you  said  you  thought  you  were    

falling  in  love  with  me.  

 

CANDY  

With  Drake,  not  Doc.    

39

Besides  I’m  still  trying  to  figure  that  all  out.  

 

DRAKE  

So  now  you’re  saying  that  you  don’t  love  me?  

 

CANDY  

I  didn’t  say  that  ...  

 

DRAKE  

So  then  you  do?  

 

CANDY  

Well  ...  

 

DRAKE  

You  are  such  a  girl.  Make  up  your  mind  already.    

And  to  think  that  I  thought  you  were  a  potential.    

(beat)  I  need  to  go.

This altercation leads to Drake’s mentor Fox taking Drake through the process of stigmatizing Candy as

an unresponsive, “frigid lesbian” feminist (Lemoncheck, 1994:200). This new description contrasts the earlier

image of Candy as an available object with the sole purpose of masculine gratification. Now, she is defined in

terms of her unavailability and thus deemed undesirable as a “lesbian, feminist”. This process allows for the

challenged masculine to regain dominance over the feminine by maneuvering her to a discredited and

marginalized position.

ACT  II,  Scene  4:  Appendix  E,  p.63-­‐64  

FOX  

I  usually  find  that  sex  is  better    

when  you  are  doing  it  with  someone  else.  

 

DRAKE  

Tell  that  to  Ms.  Virtuous  in  the  other  room.  

 

FOX  

You  mean  you  two  haven’t,    

I  mean  you  aren’t  going  to    

(Fox  starts  making  obscene  “sex  gesture”)?    

40

 

 

DRAKE  

No.  She’d  rather  spend  our  time  giving  me  lame  Popsicle  hearts  and  emasculating  me  with  her  words.    

She  called  me  adorable!  

 

FOX  

WOW!  I  did  not  see  that  one  coming.  

 

DRAKE  

What  “one”  coming?  

 

FOX  

Isn’t  it  obvious?  A  women  who  doesn’t  want  to  have  sex  with  you,  tries  to  make  it  all  about  “feelings”  and  who  

takes  pleasure  in  emasculating  you!?!    

(Drake  gives  Fox  a  blank  stare)    

She  is  a  FEMINIST  man!  

 

DRAKE  

What?  

 

FOX  

A  man-­‐eating,  Birkenstock  wearing,  protest  promoting  feminazi!  When  I  was  in  middle  school  my  father  showed  

me  a  documentary  all  about  those  crazy  bitches.  

 

Announcer  enters  dressed  as  a  wildlife  videographer,  holding  stereotypical  feminist  clothing  and  plays  these  lines  to  

the  audience.  

 

FOX  CONT’  

You  are  lucky  we  found  out  before  it  was  too  late.    

These  are  some  scary  ladies.  

By having Fox and Drake stigmatize Candy as a stereotyped “feminist”, I attempted to introduce the

idea of polarized gender roles in relation to heterosexual men’s expectations of women. According to

Lemoncheck, if a woman denies a man’s advances, then hegemonic masculine ideology tells the man to

41

conclude that the woman is a feminist, lesbian-bitch (1994:200). As such, the woman is left with one of two

options in how she is perceived by the masculine element of society; either she is a sex object, or an anti-sex

feminist.

Within this polarized context men often find validation for violent acts perpetrated towards women

through blaming the woman for the man’s violent actions. This takes shape in the musical when Drake blames

Candy for his anger and frustration and responds by physically assaulting her (there is also an implication of a

rape as portrayed by Drake straddling Candy after he has hit her to the ground). The scene follows the song

“The Feminist Of Liberal Arts”, where Fox and Drake have reconstructed Candy into their interpretation of a

“feminist”. In this section, Drake ends up surrendering to the hegemonic masculine expectation of sexual

dominance over the feminized other:

ACT  II,  Scene  4:  Appendix  E,  p.68-­‐71  

 

 

DRAKE  

 I  am  so  confused.  I  thought  that  she  loved  me.    

I  thought  we  had  something  special.  (beat)  Fox  said  that  they  are  all  the  same.  He  said  women  are  like  cool  clothes  

or  fancy  dinners,  they  make  you  feel  good  for  awhile,  but  eventually  you  are  going  to  need  something  new.  When  I  

was  with  Candy  I  was  special,  right?  No  one  laughed  at  me  when  we  were  together.(beat)  If  I  was  so  special  why  

did  she  only  think  about  the  things  she  wanted  from  our  relationship?  Why  did  she  ignore  the  things  I  needed?  Is  

she  so  much  better  than  me?  Who  is  she  anyway?  Just  a  fickle  little  girl.  I’m  the  man!  A  thing,  just  like  those  sluts  

online,  always  promising  something  they  don’t  intend  to  give  up.(beat)  I  thought  that  she  loved  me  ...  

 

Music  starts.  (Song;  “I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE”)  

 

DRAKE  (CONT’D)  

SHE  WAS  EVERYTHING  I  THOUGHT    

THAT  I  COULD  DREAM.    

A  PERFECT  PICTURE  PRIMLY    

PAINTED  FROM  MY  TV  SCREEN.    

THEN  SHE  STEPPED  OFF  OF  MY    

WEB-­‐SITE  ONTO  MY  OWN  STAGE.    

AND  THEN  I  COULDN’T  CATCH  MY    

BREATH  MY  WORDS  WERE  A  BLANK  PAGE.    

 

AND  THEN  I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.    

42

WHEN  SHE  LOOKED  AT  ME    

FROM  ACROSS  THE  ROOM.    

AND  THEN  I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.    

WHEN  WE  DANCED  OUR  DANCE    

I  THINK  I  SAW  HER  SWOON.    

I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.    

WHEN  I  PROMISED  HER    

I  COULD  NEVER  WALK  AWAY.    

I’LL  NEVER  BE  THE  SAME    

SINCE  THE  DAY,    

I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.  

 

CANDY  

THESE  MOVES  I’VE  LEARNED    

HAVE  HELPED  ME  TO  ATTRACT  THE  MEN.    

BUT  HE  WAS  DIFFERENT    

NOT  ACTING  LIKE  THE  REST  OF  THEM.    

HE  GOT  NERVOUS,  HELD  HIS  BREATH    

AND  THEN  HE’D  ACT  UNSURE.    

HOPELESS  AND  SCATTERED    

MADE  ME  FEEL  BEAUTIFUL.    

 

AND  SO  I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.    

WHEN  WE  DANCED    

THEN  LEFT  ME  ON  THE  FLOOR.    

I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.    

WHEN  WE  KISSED  AND    

HE  KEPT  WANTING  MORE.    

I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.    

WHEN  HE  PROMISED  ME    

HE  WOULD  NEVER  WALK  AWAY.    

I’LL  NEVER  BE  THE  SAME    

SINCE  THE  DAY,    

 

DRAKE  

43

SHE  SAID  SHE  LOVED  ME  

BUT  REFUSED  MY  NEEDS.  

 

 

CANDY  

HE  STARTED  SWEET    

BUT  KEPT  ON  CONFUSING  ME.  

 

DRAKE  

I  SAID  ALL  THE  LINES    

I  WAS  SUPPOSED  TO  SAY.  

 

CANDY  

I  THOUGHT  THAT  LOVE    

WOULD  NOT’VE  TURN  OUT  THIS  WAY.    

 

OH  HOW  I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.  

 

CANDY/DRAKE    

I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.    

WHEN  WE  HELD  EACH  OTHER  TENDER.  

I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.  

I  THOUGHT    

HOW  COULD  THIS  GET  BETTER.  

I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.  

I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.  

NOW  I’LL  NEVER  FEEL  THAT  WAY.    

I’LL  NEVER  BE  THE  SAME    

SINCE  THE  DAY  

I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE  ...  

 

DRAKE  

(spoken)  Who  is  she  to  treat  me  that  way?    

That  tramp!  She’s  probably  laughing  at  me  right  now.    

Thinks  I’m  not  man  enough!?!  The  BITCH!  Little  whore.  Doesn’t  think  I’m  man  enough?  What  is  she  anyway?  Just  

another  face  and  body.  Nothing  I  can’t  find  anywhere  else.  I’m  the  MAN!  (beat)  I’m  the  man  ...  

44

   

Drake  gets  up  from  the  camera-­‐chair  and  crosses  to  Candy.  Candy  is  on  the  floor  crying,  she  looks  up  at  Drake,    

very  happy  to  see  him,  thinking  they  might  reconcile.    

Candy  stands  up.  

 

CANDY  

(drying  her  tears)  Drake  ...  

 

Music  stops.  

 

DRAKE  

You  fucking  slut!  

 

Drake  slaps  Candy  across  the  face  sending  her  to  the  ground.  Drake  stands  over  top  of  her.  Lights  go  black.  Drake  exits.  

Lights  come  up  on  Candy.  Candy  sits  up  and  stays  in  a  huddled  position,  grasping  her  knees.  

 

CANDY  

(she  is  in  shock)    

I  THOUGHT  IT  WAS  LOVE.    

 

Candy  exits,  ashamed  and  broken.  Lights  go  out.  

In this scene, we see the assumptions and expectations of Drake and Candy begin to clash as each one

tries to work through the incongruence they perceive from the other’s actions. The song is used to highlight the

schizophrenic dilemma of masculine perceptions of sexuality and relational/emotional intimacy. In one phrase

Drake laments, “I thought it was love”, while in the next he acknowledges his primary motivation of sexual

intercourse, singing “I thought how could this get better”. Drake ends this scene by reducing Candy to a sexual

object. By referring to her as a “fucking slut”, Drake demonizes Candy in relation to the sexual intercourse he

never achieved with her. By saying that she “fucks” he has taken the relational characteristic of sexual

intercourse away from her, and by reducing her to a “slut”, he demonizes and discredits Candy’s desire for a

more intimate relationship.

The end result then is Drake’s complete surrender to the hegemonic assertion of masculine sexual rights.

Through this surrender Drake finds justification for his act of physical control by normalizing it in the context

of hegemonic masculine expectations. As Sabo stated, this ideology of masculinity emphasizes “male

dominance and the purely physical dimensions of the sex act while reducing women to delectable but

45

expendable objects” (1994:266). Once a woman becomes an expendable object, she is at the mercy of dominant

masculinities; it is at this stage that the masculine maintains almost complete social control of the female.

CANDY  

I  THOUGHT  THAT  LOVE    

WOULD  NOT’VE  TURNED  OUT  THIS  WAY.

Masculinity as Dominance/Control

Enigma is established at the beginning of the play as an expert in masculinity. As the “picture perfect

man”, Enigma demands allegiance and respect from the moment he steps onto the stage. The first song that

introduces Enigma to the audience and the “Guys” looking for a masculine makeover is called “The Man”. This

song is used to express the assumptions Enigma carries with him about what it means to be a true man. These

assumptions are, at the same time meant to parallel those expressed within the hegemonic discourse concerning

masculinity. I model much of the claims about masculinity on the article by Paul Kivel (1984), “The Act-Like-

A-Man Box” (see Appendix A for “Act-Like-A-Man” diagram). This context of masculine dominance differs

dramatically from that of the other masculine expressions in that this form of control does not acquire its status

through violence, but rather through “using verbal, emotional, or psychological means” (Kivel, 1984:149).

ACT  I,  Scene  3:  Appendix  E,  p.6  

ENIGMA  

DO  YOU  LIVE  WITH  YOUR  PARENTS,    

OWN  COLLECTOR’S  CRAP?    

DO  YOU  THINK  THAT  THE  BOW-­‐FLEX    

IS  FROM  KIRK’S  STAR  TREK?    

ARE  YOU  CAUGHT  SINGING  SHOWTUNES    

OR  “BEST  OF  STREISAND”?    

THEN  BOYS,  YOU’RE  NOT  REALLY  A  ...  

 

MAN  IS  STRONG,    

LEARNS  HOW  NOT  TO  CRY.    

ISN’T  SCARED  OF  LIFE,    

HE  WON’T  BE  DENIED.    

AND  A  MAN  STANDS  FIRM,    

LEARNS  TO  DRESS  HIS  ROLE,    

AND  I’M  ALL  THESE  THINGS,  

46

JUST  ONE  LOOK  YOU’LL  KNOW  I’M  THE  MAN!  

   

In verses one and two (I’ve only listed verse 1 and the chorus in this section), Enigma uses taunts and

teases to assert his power and dominance over the newly arrived “Guys”. This is a way in which dominant

males are able to maintain the status quo of hegemony (Dalley-Trim, 2007:202). The harassed guys are

relegated to a subordinate position by mocking the status and activities they currently possess. In the chorus,

Enigma continues to assert his dominance by laundry listing what it means to be a man and then claiming that

he has achieved all these expressions. While a man is strong and stoic, his importance comes from the fact the

“he won’t be denied”. The assumption here is that Enigma’s expression of the true masculine ignores any

obstacles, perceived or real, that might happen to get in the way of a man becoming all that he wants to be. This

idea is later reiterated by Enigma telling Eddie his motives for creating his masculine reconstruction program.

In this scene, Enigma is laying out his laundry list of reasons of what is unacceptable for hegemonic masculinity

and why he has chosen to combat it:    

ACT  I,  Scene  9:  Appendix  E,  p.43  

ENIGMA  

Eddie,  I’m  not  the  bad  guy  here.  I  just  refuse  to  be  the  last  guy  picked  for  teams,  but  the  first  guy  to  be  picked  on.  I  

refuse  to  be  the  guy  who  doesn’t  have  a  date  to  prom  or  who  can’t  muster-­‐up  enough  courage  to  ask  a  girl  for  her  

phone  number.  I  will  not  be  the  guy  who  sits  alone  at  night  rehearsing  his  list  of  “coulda,  shoulda,  wouldas”.  I  

refuse  to  settle  for  anything  less  than  what  I  deserve.  I’m  not  going  to  be  the  guy  that  gets  picked  on  in  locker  

rooms.  I  won’t  be  the  guy  who’s  always  scared  of  his  own  shadow,  and  I  will  not  be  the  guy  who  gets  emotionally  

crippled  just  because  some  girl  dumps  me.  A  guy  who  pulls  out  of  living  life,  I  refuse  to  be  average.  

 

 

In a study performed by Jordan and Cowan (1995), they propose that patriarchy is no longer the primary

vehicle for masculine dominance in society. Rather they suggest that we are entering a “fratriarchy”, a time

when men are no longer asserting oppressive dominance as father but now “as brothers, able to compete with

one another, but presenting a united front against those outside the group” (2007:81). Lyman (1987) also

comments on the importance and power of the fraternal connection for social dominance and control. He saw

this assertion of hegemonic control and fraternal bonding in the practice of joking relationships. In this context,

most jokes were misogynistic in nature and served to function as “a means of defending social order … [and] as

the mechanism by which the order of gender domination is sustained in everyday life” (Lyman, 1987:154).

Within the musical, I unpack this new process with each of the relationships between the mentors and their

protégés. In this next scene, Drake is attempting to achieve acceptance into the fraternal bond created between

the other men, but is mocked in a way that reaffirms the masculine traits of Peter and Manifesto:  

 

47

ACT  II,  Scene  2:  Appendix  E,  p.56-­‐57  

 

DRAKE  

Up  until  I  came  here,  the  only  place  that  I  felt  confident  and  accepted  was  in  my  online  communities.  In  there  they  

knew  me  by  my  screen  name,  “Doctor  Casanova”.  

 

Peter  and  Manifesto  try  to  hold  in  their  laughter,  but  quickly  let  it  out  and  start  pointing  and  laughing  at  Drake.  

 

PETER  

What  a  lame-­‐ass  name!  

 

MANIFESTO  

Yea,  more  like  “Doctor  Transvestite”.  “Oh  hi  ladies.  Do  you  want  to  play  doctor  and  see  all  my  girly  parts  because  ...  

I’m  a  girl!”  

 

.  .  .  

 

DRAKE  

Shut  up  Peter!  Tell  them  Fox.  

 

FOX  

They’re  right  Drake.    

It’s  a  pretty  stupid  name.  

 

At this point in the play, Peter and Manifesto have established a strong fraternal bond and as such need

to engage in activities that help to maintain its cohesion (albeit, tenuous at best). This was affirmed as Peter

begins the taunt of Drake and as Manifesto finishes the taunt by emasculating Drake and voiding him of any

semblance of power and control within the situation. The stigma is so strong that even Drake’s mentor Fox

won’t step in and offer aide. Later on in the scene (not shown here) we see Drake employing a hesitant

acceptance of his position in a technique Goffman calls “covering”. When a stigmatized individual employs the

process of covering they usually do so to “reduce tension … to make it easier for himself and the others to

withdraw covert attention from the stigma and to sustain spontaneous involvement in the official content of the

interaction” (Goffman, 1963:102). After his mentor Fox socially abandons Drake, he quickly conforms to the

jests of the other men so as to minimize the focus on his unaccepted persona. Covering is very similar to

Goffman’s notion of “passing”, but where they differ is that in passing the stigmatized individual has

48

successfully concealed their stigma, whereas, covering occurs when a stigmatized individual has been

discredited and thus they seek to shift focus away from the acknowledged stigma. In an attempt to move from

covering to passing, Drake changes his name from “Doctor Casanova” to the more accepted “Doc”.

All the while, during Drake’s attempts at concealment, Peter and Manifesto are developing their

fraternal bond through their homophobic and misogynist mocking of Drake. However, this type of relationship

cannot go on forever as we saw earlier when looking at the altercation and brawl between Manifesto and Peter

in the second Act. In this instance, we see that the male joking allows individuals the ability to create a pseudo-

experience of intimacy between them and thus negotiate “the latent tension and aggression they feel towards

each other” (Lyman, 2007:154).

Later on in the play we also see this fraternal bond break down between Eddie and Enigma as the

mentor begins to question his whole game plan and reject the expectations of hegemonic masculinity. Goffman

refers to this as the discrediting of an individual’s self-presentation, and occurs when an individual performance

is seen to be cynical and not sincere (1959:12). In this next scene, Eddie (now Mr. E) tries to resituate Enigma

back into his occupant role of masculine leader. However, Enigma cannot move outside of his cynicism and so

Eddie quickly steps into the vacant position:    

ACT  II,  Scene  6:  Appendix  E,  p.78-­‐79  

 

EDDIE  

You  need  to  snap  out  of  this!  The  guys  need  you!    

We  need  our  leader.  

 

ENIGMA  

I  don’t  know  how  effective  I’ve  been  as  a  leader  Eddie.    

Look  around  us,  its  all  falling  apart.  

 

EDDIE  

What  are  you  talking  about?    

Look  at  me.  I’ve  turned  out  great.  

 

ENIGMA  

Yea  ...  you  have  haven’t  you?  (beat)    

I  can  hear  their  voices  Eddie.  

 

EDDIE  

What?  Where’s  the  confident,  take  charge  man  I  met  when  I  got  here?  A  real  man,  not  the  whiny-­‐little-­‐girl  I  see  

49

now?  Where’s  Enigma?  Look  if  you’re  too  scared  to  take  care  of  things  then  just  get  out  of  my  way.  This  program  

has  changed  my  life  and  I  refuse  to  see  it  all  crumble    

just  because  you’ve  gone  soft!  

 

This scene becomes important in conveying the theme of dominance and control in that it is essential to

see that power relationships are never static, but in constant flux. As such, this scene marks a change in the

power dynamics of the play. At the beginning of the play, Enigma maintained the position of masculine

dominance, but by this scene he has been usurped and replaced by a new Alpha male, “Mr. E.”. Ferguson notes

this fluctuation of power, claiming that it is the result of socially accepted and unaccepted “gender acts” (2000).

If an individual begins to portray inadequate gender acts, then the consequences can become very severe and

range anywhere from “ostracism and stigmatization to imprisonment and death” (Ferguson, 2000:111). Eddie

begins to function out of the gender acts of confidence and control, whereas, Enigma starts performing

unacceptable gender acts of confusion and uncertainty. The result is that Eddie is able to assert a dominant

position of masculine expression over Enigma, and as such is able to maintain the established system of

hegemonic masculinity begun by Enigma.

Enigma is then left alone, relegated to the peripheral of society. No longer full of importance and

respect, he is now left to occupy the masculine position he so adamantly despised. I wanted to use this model of

the mentor being replaced by the student in order to show the implications such extreme expressions of

hegemonic masculinity imply, but also to highlight the idea that these hegemonic gender acts continue through

imitation. So even though the mentors have left the stage and are reaping the consequences implied by their

character choices, the students remain in one fashion or another as a way to show that these expressions of

hegemonic masculinity are continuing on.

Dramaturgy and the Performance of Masculinity

While I did not mention the principles of Goffman’s dramaturgy as a main theme within the play, it is

the theoretical glue that holds each part together. I chose to write the play from an Expressionist format and

therefore chose to blur the lines of assumed and perceived reality. Expressionist plays often attempt “to capture

the inner mysteries of the human psyche in ways that direct observation … could never reveal” (Downs &

Russin, 2004:38). The idea of people randomly breaking out into fully orchestrated song is not steeped in

reality, therefore Expressionism is the perfect grid to work from.

Throughout the play, the characters are constantly referring to moments of performance on their part. In

fact, I have used the monologues and songs spoken by the Announcer to bring attention to the characters’

blatant acting out of their roles during the different stages of their life. At first, I wanted to present the play from

50

the perspective of a researcher character type. I found that this idea became too preachy too quickly. I had

wanted to introduce a character that could represent trends and ideologies of society, so I simply took that idea

the next step further and made the play from the perspective of this character; “The Announcer”.

The Announcer performs the role of narrator and social expositor, giving voice to various social

assumptions about masculinity and the theoretical observations of Dramaturgy and Symbolic Interactionism.

This character takes on the theatrical conventions of a Grecian chorus, illuminating and guiding the audience

through the story. This character also becomes the voice for various personalities throughout the play, from

Manifesto’s abusive dad to an Australian documentary narrator explaining the dangers of the feminist, each

persona is meant to direct the audiences’ focus onto the actions and development of the “Guys” and “Mentors”

characters. The song that starts the play is called “The Show” and it introduces the audience to ideas about

Symbolic Interactionism and dramaturgy.

ACT  I,  Scene  1:  Appendix  E,  p.1  

LIGHTS,  CAMERA,  ACTION.                      

THE  SHOW  HAS  JUST  BEGUN.                        

A  SOCIAL  EXCHANGE  INFRACTION,      

MEANT  FOR  MEANINGS  FROM  EVERYONE.  

 

LIGHTS,  CAMERA,  SUBSTANCE.    

PRESENTING  WHAT  WE’VE  BECOME.    

REFLECTED  IN  HOW  WE  AUGMENT.    

REFLECTING  MEANINGS  FROM  EVERYONE.    

 

Cast  members  enter  wearing  masquerade  masks  and  begin  setting  up  the  stage;  Announcer  dictates  where  members  

take  props  and  set  pieces;  A  camera  is  set  up  on  D.S.R.,  in  front  of  an  empty  chair.  This  camera  and  chair  will  remain  in  

this  spot  throughout  the  rest  of  the  play.  

 

   

SET  THE  STAGE;  LIGHT  THE  SCENE.    

FILM,  OBSERVE;  RECORD  THE  MEANINGS.    

PLAY  YOUR  ROLE;  ACT  OUT  YOUR  LINES.    

THE  SET  IS  STAGED  FOR  THE  SUBLIME.  

 

Cast  members  exit;  Announcer  stays.  

 

LIGHTS,  CAMERA,  STEADY.                          

51

A  SHOWCASE  OF  WHERE  WE’VE  BEEN.    

SO  TAKE  YOUR  SEATS  GET  READY    

AS  OUR  HERO  NOW  ENTERS  IN.  

 

The first and second verses were inspired by the three premises of Symbolic Interactionism: (1) “human

beings act towards things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them”, (2) “the meaning of such

things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interactions that one has with one’s fellow”, and (3) “these

meanings are handled in, and modified through an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the

things he encounters” (Blumer, 1969:2). Branching from these principles within Symbolic Interactionism, the

third section is used to introduce the foundational concept of dramaturgy. Here social interaction is equated to a

theatrical performance. All the other characters within the play sustain this theme, but the Announcer is created

to be the primary agent in charge of disseminating this theoretical information.

Ending Without An Ending

I have chosen to end the play without resolution with the intention of allowing room for audience

members to find their own interpretations. As such, it will be important for me to articulate “action steps” that

follow the performance. Miller (1998) refers to these action steps as elements consciously added into a

performance that actively involve the audience, either through layering within the script, discussions with the

audience or providing the audience with ways in which they can implement the information presented. For my

research I took two approaches towards the action steps.

First, I viewed the focus groups with the play participants as one form of action steps. By creating an

atmosphere in which the actors and musicians could engage in dialogue, we were able to perform gender

projects. These projects serve as the mediators between the abstract ideologies existent within the collective

consciousness of a society and the actual implementation of those ideas into institutions and practices. By

delineating specific times in which the actors and musicians could discuss and process the ideas that challenge

hegemonic masculinity, we were able to produce a format where open discourse could occur among social

participants and thus begin the promotion of social change.

The second action step took place on the night of the play performance. A common element of most

theatrical performances involves a curtain call in which the actors come on stage as actors, not as their

characters, and thank the audience through the ritual of a bow and the audience thanks the actors through the

ritual of applause. This act usually marks the end of the performance and thus the cessation of the world and

ideas presented within the play.

52

For Pick-Up Artist: The Musical I did not want the audience to feel a sense of closure with the play.

Rather, I wanted to reiterate ideas of dramaturgy, reminding the audience that they are just as much a part of

these performances as the actors on stage. I wanted to convey the idea that, although we are all leaving the

performance space, we still have a conscious choice in how we perform before each other. I chose to

accomplish this by ending the play with a song called “Curtain Call”. This song was intended to call the

audience to action and provide an alternative option for response as opposed to the usually detachment from the

actions that occurred on stage and the involvement expected from the audience members. The lyrics go as

follows:

ACT  II,  Scene  8:  Appendix  E,  p.83  

During  the  song  the  house  lights  are  slowly  rising  until  they  are  fully  on.  

 

THERE  IS  NO  CURTAIN  CALL.  

THE  SHOW  IT  MUST  GO  ON.    

THERE  IS  NO  FINAL  BOW.    

ITS  LIVED  OUT  IN  EVERYONE.    

NOW  AS  THE  HOUSE  LIGHTS  RISE,    

YOU’LL  STEP  ONTO  YOUR  STAGE.    

THE  PAGE  IS  TURNED    

NOW  IT’S  TIME  TO  LEARN    

HOW  TO  ACT  OUT  IN  THIS  GAME.  

 

The  cast  starts  entering  from  all  areas  wearing  masquerade  masks.  During  the  song,  lights  are  slowly  coming  up  in  the  

house,  and  crew  members  enter  and  begin  taking  off  pieces  of  the  set  until  the  stage  is  bare.  

 

   

THERE  IS  NO  CURTAIN  CALL.    

THE  CHOICE  IS  UP  TO  YOU.    

THERE’LL  BE  NO  LOUD  APPLAUSE,    

JUST  WHAT  WE  FINALLY  CHOOSE  TO  DO.    

NOW  WHEN  YOU  LEAVE  YOUR  SEATS,    

PLEASE  REMEMBER  WHAT  YOU’VE  SEEN.    

NO  DREAMS  BEEN  MADE,    

BUILD  FROM  YESTERDAY    

AND  MAKE  CHOICES  THAT  WILL  MEAN  THAT    

 

53

THERE  IS  NO  CURTAIN  CALL.    

WILL  OUR  ACTIONS  STAY  THE  SAME?    

WILL  WE  FORGET  IT  ALL?    

OR  WILL  WE  TAKE  PART  IN  THE  GAME?    

WHEN  WE  STEP  IN  OUR  WORLDS    

WILL  WE  BLINDLY  ACT  OUR  ROLES?    

NO!  IT’S  AN  OPEN  CALL,    

NO  MORE  CAMEOS,    

SO  NOW  TAKE  THE  STAGE    

AND  KNOW  THAT    

 

Cast  members  intermittently  drop  their  masks  to  the  floor.  

 

THERE  IS  NO  CURTAIN  CALL  (X4)  

At the song’s end the actors exit through the audience and into the “real world”. By implementing these

action steps, both groups (play participants and audience members) were given the opportunity to take the

principles and ideas presented in the musical and make a decision based on them. It ceased being a voyeuristic

journey and became a call to action.

“My Momma Said I’m Special”:

What I Brought to The Research and Construction Of The Musical

Since I approach the understanding of “reality” from the belief that it is historically and structurally

dependent, I made sure that my research attuned to the structures that shape mainstream “reality construction”,

the cultural elements that exist within pop-culture production, and how they have developed and changed

throughout history. Recognizing my influence on the subjects being researched directed me to format a research

design that allowed for a dialogue, where the views of the investigated are just as valued as the interpretations I

make.

This approach to research has naturally contained elements of my personal reflections on identity

construction and the process I underwent in my own social development. As a result, this research contains

multiple levels of interpretations, or what Anthony Giddens referred to as a double hermeneutic. For Giddens,

the goal of the social sciences was to be markedly different from that of the natural sciences. Abstract objects,

such as minerals and chemicals, simply perform actions, they don’t seek to understand anything about the

54

researcher performing the experiment (single hermeneutic). However, in the social sciences, studying people

automatically adds another level of analysis that needs to be understood (double hermeneutic). A social analysis

needs to take into account the way in which an individual’s understanding and growing adaptation to new

technology and information influence and change their practices and interpretations. The researcher must take

into account that “the ‘findings’ of the social sciences very often enter constitutively into the world they

describe” (Giddens 1987:20).

In the play, I represented sociological theories of identities, but was partially limited to my own

experiences. This had some restrictive elements to it, such as the ideological views I bring into the construction

of character types within the musical, or the historically limited viewpoints I possess due to my social setting

and worldview. However, I know I connect and become most involved in artistic expressions that convey a

sense of personal involvement on the part of the artist. Therefore, while in some ways limited by my social

vantage point, the use of personal narrative coupled with an analysis on the double hermeneutical level, has

yielded richer results and produced multiple answers to my questions through the engaged interpretations of the

play participants.

55

CHAPTER 5 The Props of Collective Meanings: Focus Groups!

The childish taunts began to grow in resonance, filling the playground with their singsong mockery.

“Butt-Ugly-Mitchell-Brady, Butt-Ugly-Mitchell-Brady”. The genius acronym came from the shirt he chose to

wear to school that day: B.U.M.. I stood silently in line waiting to return to my sixth grade classroom. The

condescending choir grew. “Butt-Ugly-Mitchell-Brady, Butt-Ugly-Mitchell-Brady”. The pressure to join in the

group chant began to restructure the wide openness of the outdoor environment into a small 4x4 cell of

anticipatory eyes. “Butt-Ugly-Mitchell-Brady, Butt-Ugly-Mitchell-Brady, BUTT-UGLY-MITCHELL-BRADY,

BUTT-UGLY-MITCHELL-BRADY!!!” I wish I could say I held my ground, received my purple star for basic

human decency. I didn’t. The group advanced and I followed suit. And Mitchell Brady was left alone, treading

water in a sea of defamations. He was my scapegoat, my sacrificial lamb, the reason I wouldn’t be the focus of

an acronym attack that day. We all learn at a young age, groups can become powerful things.

In this chapter, I want to show the way in which groups, when their powers are used for good, can be

important tools in promoting social change rather than reaffirming social inequalities. I will show how I used the

format of focus groups to ascertain ways in which collectives construct meanings in and through interactions. I

will outline four primary advantages when using focus groups. However, each of these advantages points to my

main reason for using focus groups, which is the ability they give to witness the collective construction of

meanings in action. It is this ability to witness the process of emergent collective meaning that I see as my main

advantage in using focus groups in relation to pop-cultural meanings.

The Paradigm That Got Away

For my analysis, I chose to operate out of a constructivist grounded theory model. Kathy Charmaz

describes this approach as one that “adopts grounded theory guidelines as tools but does not subscribe to the

objectivist, positivist assumptions in its earlier formulations” (2005:509). Using grounded theory as a set of

tools, constructivists’ aim is to make the studied phenomenon the point of emphasis, rather than emphasizing the

methods used. Branching from that point Charmaz states that it is also important to “take a reflexive stance on

modes of knowing and representing studied life” (2005:509).

This stance challenges two major positivist assumptions: 1. Data exists in the external world and is there

for our discovery, 2. Observers enter the research as impartial and “without an interpretive frame of reference”

(2005:509). These challenges to positivist assumptions mean that the researcher is as active an agent in the

construction of “data” as the participants are.

Therefore, it is important for the researcher to often acknowledge “their prior interpretive frames,

biographies, and interests as well as the research context, their relationships with research participants, concrete

56

field experience, and modes of generating and recording empirical materials” (Charmaz, 2005:509). In doing so,

the researcher can present critical analyses that produce “informed renderings of reality, not objective reportings

of it” (Charmaz, 2005:510). By using grounded theory in this fashion, I have been able to frame my research in

an inductive way that still allows for the paradigm assumptions posed by critical theory.

Due to the more inductive approach inspired by grounded theory, the format of focus groups (Morgan,

1988; Strauss and Corbin, 1998) allowed for a more cooperative questioning environment thus producing a

more egalitarian inquiry. The methodological assumption of focus groups is that “an individual’s attitudes and

beliefs do not form in a vacuum: People often need to listen to others’ opinions and understandings to form their

own” (Marshall and Rossman, 2006:114). In this context, the researcher takes on the role of facilitator and the

respondents participate within a setting that fosters open dialogue between each of its members.

Focus Groups Are People Too!

For some academics in the social sciences, the phrase “focus group” has been a dirty word, used by

marketing machines to decide what new Mt. Dew flavor should be created next (which I think is outrageous;

when it comes to Mt. Dew you don’t mess with perfection). Unfortunately, this bias ignores the rich information

that can result from an appropriately administered focus group study. David Morgan (1988) outlines the rich

possibilities of using focus groups in social research.

Focus groups can primarily be used in “orienting oneself to a new field…generating hypotheses based on

informants’ insights…(and even) getting participants interpretations of results from earlier studies” (Morgan,

1988:11). Such a format also lends itself nicely to exploratory modes of research, maintaining a flexibility

towards exploring “unanticipated issues as they arise in the discussion” (Marshall and Rossman, 2006:114). This

is because focus groups often assess the “attitudes and cognitions” of individuals and social groups, as opposed

to strict participant observations, that often only address issues of “roles and organizations” (Morgan, 1988:17).

As insinuated in its term, focus groups are primarily interested in understanding data and insights formed within

group interaction “that would be less accessible without the interaction found in a group” (Morgan, 1988:12).

Focus groups therefore, become a hybrid fusion of both one-to-one interviews and participant observations. For

the purposes of this research, I have found four advantages to using the focus group format.

The first advantage, mentioned earlier, is that focus groups are perfectly suited for research questions

aimed at exploration of new ideas. They “are useful when it comes to investigating what participants think, but

they excel at uncovering why participants think as they do” (Morgan, 1988:25). Because my research was

geared towards understanding how play participants interpreted ideas presented in a sociological piece of pop-

culture art, it was important to have an atmosphere that was conducive to dialogue. Focus groups do just that.

The second advantage I found was in “the informal group discussion atmosphere of the focus group

interview structure…intended to encourage subjects to speak freely and completely about behaviors, attitudes,

57

and opinions they possess” (Berg, 2004:123). By crafting simple and open-ended questions that promote easy

dialogue, the focus group format allows for a wealth of information to emerge, providing a rich discourse of

individual interpretations.

Next, the format of focus groups allows for a lot of information to be gathered in a limited amount of

time (Berg, 2004). This was beneficial to me in that I had limited resources and timeframes, so I needed to

utilize the time that I did have in the best, most productive way possible. By combining one-to-one interviews

with participant observations, the hybrid of the focus group allows for a multileveled accumulation of research

data in a one-shot approach.

The last advantage to using focus groups is the opportunity it provides “to observe a large amount of

interaction on a topic” (Morgan, 1988:15). This advantage also comes with a disadvantage in that it is

structurally dependent on the observer’s control and maintenance of the focus group. This control creates a

social setting that is fundamentally “unnatural”. This means that elements of the researcher’s assumptions have

a tendency to dictate the discussion direction, as opposed to participant observations, where the researcher is as

unobtrusive in the social setting as possible, observing the “natural” patterns of the observed. While this was a

disadvantage for tapping behavior, I felt that the exploratory advantages of focus groups, which included giving

voice to groups and tapping cultural and psychological meanings, outweighed the “natural” social settings one

can observe with other forms of research. Also, the depth of information that I achieved through the layered

interactions that emerged from the focus group forums was perfectly suited for the research I set out to perform.

Just Add Water: The Makings of a Focus Group

With my main aim pertaining to the interpretations of individuals and collectives, I chose to use the focus

group research method as a “self-contained” tool of research and analysis. Morgan states that a self-contained

focus group is a study in which the results can stand on their own, asserting “that no such further data collection

is necessary before reporting the results from the focus group research itself” (1988:25).

For my staged reading presentation and subsequently my focus group participants, I ended up acquiring

the actors and musicians for the play performance through theatrically standard procedures. For the actors, I

attended call back auditions for NAU theatre students and asked certain actors if they would like to participate

in my thesis project. From those who responded I created a cast list, placing them in the roles that the director6

and I felt were most suitable. This process gave an accurate representation of how plays are produced in terms

of casting, and it benefited the theatre students by giving them performance experience. The musical director7

6 Also referred to as a stage director For Pick-Up Artist: The Musical I asked a member of my thesis committee and theatre professor, Barbara Jo Maier, to direct the show. This means that they cast an artistic vision for the overall show and help see that vision accomplished through blocking the actor’s movements and helping the actors in their character choices. 7 The musical director functions in much the same way as the director in that they are charged with casting a musical vision, in line with the vision of the stage director, and making sure that this vision is accomplished through the other musicians. In this play the musical director was my wife, Roxanne Hornbeck.

58

and I hand picked the musicians prior to the first rehearsal. Since I had a shorter period to rehearse and perform

the play, it was important to have musicians that have played together and were familiar with the material. This

allowed the director to focus her attention on sculpting the play according to how she interpreted the material.

The first focus group setting was with two of the actors and all five musicians. There were two women,

one in her early twenties and the other in her mid-forties. The rest of the focus group was made up of guys

ranging from eighteen to twenty seven. It took place after the second dress rehearsal. This focus group was held

at our rehearsal space and lasted one hour and thirty-five minutes. The second focus group was comprised of the

rest of the actors (five in all) and took place the afternoon before the performance. This group also had two

women, both in their early to mid-twenties and three guys all between eighteen and twenty three. This focus

group was held in the lobby of the theatre space we performed the staged reading in and lasted forty-five

minutes.

In order to fully capture all the information and conversations that took place in each focus group, I used

both an audio tape recorder and notebook for hand written observations. The audio recordings were then

analyzed in conjunction with the written observations in an attempt to give a detailed representation of the

audiences’ interpretations. Each focus group had two researchers: one to function as moderator and the other to

operate as an unobtrusive observer (Berg, 2004). The musical director fulfilled the role of the observer; she was

charged with writing down all observations made during the conversation in the notebook. I performed the task

of moderator and as such operated the recording device and facilitated the focus group conversations. My

facilitation incorporated five primary stages within the focus group interaction.

The first stage was an introduction, involving an explanation of “what the project is seeking and how a

focus group operates” (Berg, 2004:133). This involved reminders such as, “You have volunteered to be a part of

an NAU approved research project. As such, you have the freedom at anytime during the research to leave for

any reason and you will not be penalized for such actions. This is completely voluntary.” It also involved letting

the focus group participants know the importance of their participation stating that: “As a focus group

participant, your involvement and interpretations are not only valid, but extremely important to the research.

There ARE NO WRONG ANSWERS!”

The introduction also elicited a short introduction from each of the participants. This introduction gave

an opportunity for the participants to orient themselves with the other focus group members and ultimately to

feel “more comfortable in what is otherwise a fairly unnatural and potentially disconcerting situation among

strangers” (Berg, 2004:134). This also provided audio orientation for connecting names with voices during my

analysis phase.

Next, I stated the rules and guidelines for participation within a focus group. This stage went as follows.

“In an attempt to remain respectful to all participants, there are a few conversational rules we are all expected to

follow:

59

1. NO degrading talk, such as referring to other participants (or their answers) as “stupid” or any other

similar adjective.

2. Disagreements are fine as long as they are done with respect.

3. NO interrupting other participants.

4. Refrain from dominating the conversation. Allow other participants an opportunity to share.

5. Keep exchanges polite and open.

For the ease of analysis (in particular audio transcription), participants were asked to follow these few

guidelines:

1. Each participant must state their name before they speak.

2. Each participant must speak loudly for all

participants to hear and for recording purposes.

3. All participants must address each other by name.

It was my goal not to make this into a recitation of First Grade etiquette, but rather a reminder of the

importance of respectful interactions and conversations. At this point, I handed out the Group Agreement Form

(as indicated in Appendix B) and an Individual Consent Form (as indicated in Appendix D) and reviewed each

with the participants.

After the technical aspects of the focus group were addressed, I proposed five questions about the ideas

presented within the play to the focus group (see Appendix C). This launched us into the question and answer

portion of the study. During this time, I sought to remain limited in my involvement, allowing for the group to

dictate the direction of the conversation and thus, the overall group meaning. The goal of the research was to

ascertain what the participants/audience, collectively perceived and interpreted through the presented ideas;

therefore, as the moderator, the goal of my interaction was to be limited to structural issues, such as timeframes

or drawn out tangents, not that of interjecting my own perceptions and opinions.

The last stage involved a conclusion of the conversation and thanks for their participation in the staged

reading as well as the focus group discussion. By facilitating the focus group through these stages. I was able to

utilize our time in an effective way, while still allowing an atmosphere to develop that encouraged group

participation and discussion.

As I conducted the focus groups, I drew on four aspects of group discussions proposed by Morgan “as

the basis for observing and interpreting cognitive processes in self-contained focus groups” (1988:28). First, I

attempted to pay “attention to the difference between what participants find interesting and what they find

important” (Morgan, 1988:28). While topics may arise that the participants find interesting and thus, return back

to regularly, this does not necessarily mean that it is a topic that the participants believe is important to the

focused ideas. Interesting ideas may simply be the result of shared experiences,

60

but when probed with questions, the participants may discover that such ideas are not relevant determinants of

the ideas being discussed. This occurred for one participant when they kept bringing up how much they hate

“reality T.V.”. Through a series of questions he realized that his distain ultimately had nothing to do with the

content inside of reality shows. It was simply a matter of presentational taste not normative pressures.

As the discussion developed, I noticed a second aspect of the group in that certain participants’

embodied different perspectives/worldviews. I made notes of this so that during my analysis I could pay

attention to how those “differences in perspectives are revealed through how questions get asked and answered”

(Morgan, 1988:28). When the discussion reached the point where the participants began asking each other

clarifying questions or making statements and then later on adding clarification, I noticed that differing

perspectives were beginning to emerge.

Through this question and answer stage it was important to be aware of how each individual negotiates

and defends their differing perspectives. This process was most evident within a conversation that arose

between two of the female participants and their interpretations of physical and emotional abuse (note that all

participants being referred to have pseudonyms):

Michelle sat on the floor, legs intertwined with each other. She surveyed the men in the room and spoke;

“I think with being a woman, the idea of being emotionally attacked is much worse than being

physically attacked. Um, I think for us the idea of being hurt is so much worse than like if someone were

to slap us. The idea that Drake is going to leave her and is...that relationship will never be healed is

much worse than just hitting her once, I think personally.”

Beth sat up straight in her cushioned chair and immediately addressed Michelle as the men’s eyes began

to drift towards the ceiling;

“And I kind of agree with you, but I slightly disagree because I feel like if a woman is abused

physically, that just brings all of the emotional things into it and it’s like the culmination part. I think

that that’s as heartbreaking as anything else. Although (with lots of emphasis) if you were in a

relationship where it was just all verbal, or emotional, whatever, then it would be as painful and as

devastating as being in an only physical abusive relationship…that they have the same weight, but I still

think that like [physical] abuse is pretty painful.”  

Michelle stayed intently focused on Beth as she spoke, letting her head actively affirm Beth’s words;

61

“Oh yea, I mean, I wasn’t saying it isn’t as painful … I just, yea it’s just as bad.”

It’s interesting to note the change in Michelle’s approach to the subject of feminine abuse. As Beth

stated her disagreement with Michelle’s statement, Michelle quickly began agreeing with Beth. Her body

language (especially in contrast to the noninvolved males) was overtly supportive of Beth’s statement and

followed with a clear verbal agreement concerning Beth’s statement. This example not only highlights the

process of negotiation that occurs when different perspectives collide, but it also shows the power of the group

and assumed normative expectations in pressuring individuals to conform their understandings and meanings

about a certain subject to those of the dominant whole. By the men remaining inactive in their conversational

participation, Michelle was left unsupported in the conversation, and therefore conforms to the perspective of

Beth.

This practice dovetailed with the third aspect of group discussion. There were moments, a few, where

the participants began to find areas in which they tended to disagree with each other, as seen in the excerpt

above. In the same respect, there were also profound moments in the discussion when many participants

reached agreement on a topic. As this occurred, it was important to observe not only what issues were being

debated and then agreed upon, but also “how participants agree and disagree in the group” (Morgan, 1988:29).

Practices of resolution became particularly important to pay attention to because they highlighted moments

when collective thought emerged, thus a shared interpretation of meaning was created. As we saw, this occurred

between Beth and Michelle as they attempted to negotiate different meanings around domestic violence. It also

occurred as participants were developing ideas about different character types presented within the play.

The inherent characteristics of group dynamics produce “mechanisms whereby participants build a

comprehensive model to explain their various experiences with a topic” (Morgan, 1988:29). By adhering to this

model of observation, I was be able to notice instances of change between the individual’s interpretations and

the shared consensuses that arose from the group dynamic.

By conducting this research on the focus group level, I was able to gain a wider range of perspectives

from individuals on their interpretations and how such views influence their daily lives. The focus groups also

provided an opportunity to gain better access to a more substantive level of content from the participants. When

dealing with issues of academic knowledge, it can quickly become easy for the participant to feel inadequate

and self-conscious in their answers and responses (Berg, 2004). The focus group format allowed for a greater

sense of equality between the respondents and the interviewer. With such equality established, I was able to

exhibit greater accuracy in determining the interpretations and interactions created from the theatrically

presented ideas.

62

CHAPTER 6 Life After Focus Groups:

Inductive Analysis of the Players’ Interpretations of the Musical

I sat and listened to the constant hum from the library’s overhead lights. A Gregorian chant of electricity

and glass, underscoring my significant undertaking, my academic Mass. My books and articles laid sprawled out

over the table, like the out-stretching hand of the ancient Roman Empire. Everything before me signaled my

readiness to begin the writing of Pick-Up Artist: The Musical. So why was I immobilized? Why would no words

appear on my computer? Writer’s block was too simplistic an answer. Fear? I stared at the blank page and

flashing black line wondering if I could write anything of relevance. How could I know if anyone would

understand what I was trying to accomplish? My fear was that of being irrelevant, producing a piece of

inconsequential theatrical dribble. This fear blurred the road signs and almost resulted in me losing my way. But,

through the combination of desire, passion, and Mt. Dew I found the road and began traveling towards my end

goal. Only through the completion of the play would I be able to ascertain its relevance and effectiveness in

popular culture.

In this chapter, I will analyze the effectiveness of Pick-Up Artist: The Musical in conveying sociological

insights, by looking at how the focus groups interpret the ideas, express them in a group and ultimately

formulate meanings around the presented ideas. I will start by explaining the approaches I use to inform my

analysis, followed by an inductive look at themes and discourse that emerges within the focus groups around the

sociological ideas within the play. I will then conclude with an examination of the limitations I encountered

within my research in an attempt to provide insight for future researchers.

Strategies Towards Analysis

I have chosen two approaches to inform my analysis process. I based my analysis goals on the

principles of a constructivist grounded theory: “theory may be generated initially from the data” (Strauss and

Corbin, 1994:273). As such I looked at “patterns of action and interaction between and among various types of

social units” as well as what processes occurred through “changes in patterns of action/interaction” (Strauss and

Corbin, 1994:278). After identifying and interpreting patterns and processes found within the data, I aimed at

developing insights that contribute to the larger academic body of knowledge, but ultimately was most

concerned with my “obligations to the actors [I] have studied…to give them voice” (Strauss and Corbin,

1994:281) in the realm of academia.

I started my analysis by transcribing each audio recording and pairing them up with their respective

notebook observations. I gave each participant a pseudonym and then placed participant responses under their

pertinent themes using color-coded highlighters. Much of the respondents’ conversation could fit under the

63

general thematic headings that informed the construction of the play; however, as the conversations grew I saw

other themes arise that seemed to relate to sub-themes within the play. Amongst these sub-themes, three became

the most salient and pervasive within the focus group discussions: (1) loneliness as an emotional and social

stigma, (2) relationships as a means by which to find identity and definition (in the individual’s gender, racial

and sexual expressions), and (3) storytelling as a way of interpersonal connection and therapeutic

understanding. I will develop and give examples of each of these themes in the next section.

The end result of implementing the actors’ voices into my analysis of the data has been the presentation

of participant quotes as a means of illuminating their viewpoints and perspectives. Since the focus groups were

centered on particular questions, natural themes were already embedded into the data and transcripts of the

focus group conversations. Informed by these prescribed thematic headings, the induction of participant quotes

followed by informed interpretations allows for clear representations of audience interpretation concerning the

theatrically presented ideas (Morgan, 1988).

As I analyzed the data, I chose to use the analytical tools proposed by Strauss and Corbin (1998) as a

means of diminishing my biases and refining my research. The first tool employed the use of questioning, “not

to generate data but rather to generate ideas or ways of looking at the data” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:90). This

meant that I began my analysis by first exploring different ways with which to look at the raw data. With

attention focused on perceptions of data interpretation rather than data generation, questions such as “who,

what, when, where, why, and how,” took priority in analysis. This took me back to my original research

question: How can pop-cultural mediums, such as a musical, be used to promote sociological knowledge and

ultimately encourage social discourse and ideological change? Resituated on this foundational question, I began

to explore the data in the context of its literary content. This lead me to employ another tool described by

Strauss and Corbin (1998).

This secondary tool I used was the,

[A]nalysis of a word, phrase, or sentence … to raise questions about possible meanings, whether

assumed or intended …[or to] bring into awareness an analyst’s assumptions about what is being said or

observed while demonstrating to him or her that there are other possible meanings and interpretations

(Strauss and Corbin, 1998:92).

This was accomplished by creating a list of words that seemed to reoccur within the conversation both in

relation to the three themes identified by Kaufman and to those I used to construct the musical. The table that

follows is that list:

64

Masculinity as

Homophobia

Masculinity as Feminine

Objectification

Masculinity as

Dominance/Control

love sexuality nerd

scared sex loner

alone alone alone

love love

sexy

Under each thematic heading I saw that both the words “love” and “alone” show up consistently during

each conversation. Taking one of the words, “alone”, I made a list of all the possible meanings that could be

ascribed to that word, bearing in mind the context that the concept was being spoken in. I then applied the

alternate concepts in an attempt to find which meaning most appropriately fit.

Alone- isolated from others

Alone- lacking companions or companionship

Alone- exclusive of anyone or anything else

Alone- without anybody else

Alone- radically distinctive and without equal

In the context of the play and thus the focus group questions, I feel that the definition that describes a

lack of companionship most accurately applies. This is seen in a myriad of comments made by the participants:

Rod: “…I really thought that picking up girls and looking and dressing the part were what

brought happiness and what showed you that you were, you were never alone…” (emphasis

mine)

Steve: “…Eddie talks about how he was in love and then um, she left him and in the play it

doesn’t really explain why and maybe Eddie doesn’t even know why and I know that um, in my

last…one of my last relationships um when I was left alone and I didn’t know why and you

know when Eddie was left alone then he comes to Enigma’s. And there were so many times

where I joked around about, like, joining a website like Match.com. Because I was so afraid that

I was never going to find anyone else.” (emphasis mine)

65

Michelle: “… the theory of am I allowed to be alone? And I think like homosexuality ties in with

that because I think you’re seen as when you are a homosexual you’re, you are in some cases

alone for the most part…. You’d think that being masculine would mean that you could be

alone.” (emphasis mine)

It is important to note that to be alone does not mean that someone has to be isolated and absent from

people’s presence. Feelings of loneliness can occur within individuals no matter what their social situation. Rod

expresses this feeling in talking about his connection to the character of Enigma:

Rod: “…And then the further along I got and, and the more women I was in relationship with or

the more popular I got the more lonely I became so I started questioning whether those things

were, were really true or not.” (emphasis mine)

I continued this process with each of the other listed words as a way of refining my own assumptions

towards what was being meant during the conversations. This process was intended to develop my cognition to

stay attuned to the multitude of possible meanings an individual may be bringing with them when using these

taken for granted words.

The third tool of comparison was “essential for identifying categories and for their development”

(Strauss and Corbin, 1998:93-94). Comparisons can be practiced in two ways. First is the comparison of either

incident-to-incident or object-to-object (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). This can be useful in strict categorization

and identification. For my research purposes, I chose the second form of comparison, which is “comparing

categories (abstract concepts) to similar or different concepts to bring out possible properties and dimensions

when these are not evident to the analyst” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:94). I compared the abstract themes and

ideas presented in the musical with the ideas and themes that arose from the focus group conversations.

The last analytical tool is referred to as the “red flag”. This is striving to recognize moments “when

either your own or the respondents’ biases, assumptions, or beliefs are intruding into the analysis” (Strauss and

Corbin, 1998:97). This can be indicated through respondent word use such as “always” or “never”. Such

imperative statements often imply a particular assumption about the operations of how life functions. Since my

research was concerned with voicing these particular viewpoints of the participants, I chose to acknowledge the

moments of “red flag” within the focus group conversations, but did not concern myself with trying to minimize

such encounters. It is my belief that such instances of assumption and bias are moments where I can truly

observe the “culture” as it speaks through my participants.

Therefore, my goal in the analysis process was twofold. I identified themes, through patterns and

processes that emerged within the focus group conversations, as well as the intentional themes I purposely

66

embedded into the play itself, to construct an analysis that will add to the larger academic body of knowledge. I

have also attempted to give an ethnographic voice to the focus group participants. Utilizing the analytical tools

proposed by Strauss and Corbin, I examined how some audiences individually and collectively construct and

interpret meanings centered on ideas presented in a pop-cultural format.

“Tell Me Something Good …”: The Analysis of “Pick-Up Artist: The Musical”

Never Alone:

The mountain wind yelped at the double-paned windows as the focus group created a circle with chairs

and bodies.

I think I identify most with the character of Enigma, because for a long time in high school and growing

up I really thought that picking up girls and looking and dressing the part were what brought happiness

and what showed you that you were, you were never alone.

Rod spoke as he sat curled up inside the pink and purple blanket.

And then the further along I got and, and the more women I was in relationship with or the more popular

I got the more lonely I became so I started questioning whether those things were, were really true or

not.

Rod’s sentiments hung in the silent air. Eyes performed a ballet of avoidance as the room grew quieter.

The winter afternoon brought a colder air as the sun hid behind clouds threatening snow. Each member of the

focus group held their arms tightly to their chests, partially because of the winter chill, but also because of how

vulnerable they were asked to become.

Suddenly Raymond spoke, then David and then Carrie, soon, like a strata volcano believed to be

dormant, conversations erupted. Within the two focus groups many interesting insights were introduced

concerning ideas presented within Pick-Up Artist: The Musical. One insight concerned the social implications

of loneliness for the one experiencing it. In the play, the character of Eddie is constantly motivated by his desire

to not be alone in life. His mantra rings, “I’m just tired of being alone”. Members of the focus groups expressed

this same struggle. Steve states:

Um in, in the play, Eddie talks about how he was in love and then um, she left him and in the play it

doesn’t really explain why and maybe Eddie doesn’t even know why and I know that um, in my

last…one of my last relationships um when I was left alone and I didn’t know why and you know when

Eddie was left alone then he comes to Enigma’s. And there were so many times where I joked around

about, like, joining a website like Match.com.

67

Steve laughed uncomfortably, suddenly his eyes started to water up. He continued:

Because I was so afraid that I was never going to find anyone else.

Michelle jumped in and took this idea a bit further as she commented on the way in which

homosexuality has become so closely tied to issues of loneliness. For the homosexual man, a stigmatized

attribute often gets placed on him that produces a level of forced social isolation within the individual.

… that’s part of Peter’s downfall is that they say, you know, “We’re never alone. We’re never alone.

We don’t ever want to be alone.” And he finally, he finds a friend in Eddie and Manifesto immediately

makes him … admit that he can’t have him as a friend because then you’re gay so um, I think that that

argues the whole masculine thing. You’d think that being masculine would mean that you could be

alone. You know you could stand on your own and do all these things for yourself, but instead they’re

kind of contradicting that even during the show by saying, you need these friends, you need these people

to support you, you need a woman.

Michelle’s statement rings congruent with the research of Kimmel and Pascoe in that American

masculinity is markedly defined as men fearing other men (Kimmel, 1994). The result is that the homosexual

man is pushed to the outer periphery of society and consistently denied social access to relational interactions.

Kivel comments on this process in the sustaining of an individual’s masculinity, noting that men must attack

other men as an assertion of their masculinity (1984:148). As Michelle states, Manifesto must condemn Eddie

and Peter’s friendship in order to assert his masculinity and relieve his homophobic fears. It is important to note

the way in which homophobia enforces a feminized isolation on the homo-stigmatized individual. It insinuates

that transgressions from hegemonic expressions of masculinity will be penalized, and that the feminine is that

penalization due to its lesser status, forced to dwell in loneliness until the masculine comes to the rescue.

This idea presented by Michelle parallels exactly with ACT I, Scene 6. In this scene Peter is forcefully

trying to convince Manifesto of his heterosexuality and masculinity. Goffman refers to this as “defensive

practices” and it involves “strategies and tactics to protect his (the individual’s) own projections” (1959:13).

ACT  I;  Scene  6:  Appendix  E,  p.22-­‐23  

MANIFESTO  

(sarcastically)    

Eddie?  Oh  yeah,  your  boyfriend.  Yeah,  he  really  looks  like  he  knows  what  he’s  talking  about.  I  mean,  with  all  the  

respect  he  gets  from  everyone  and  all  the  girls  lining  up  to  ride  his  joystick  ...  oh  wait,  that’s  not  him.  It’s  me!    

You  two  must  really  be  in  love!  

68

 

Eddie  enters  and  sits  down  at  the  “camera-­‐chair”.  Peter  and  Manifesto  freeze  when  Eddie  is  speaking.  

 

PETER  

I  TOLD  YOU!  He’s  not  my  BOYFRIEND!  

 

EDDIE  

(to  the  camera)  

Yeah,  I  wanted  to  leave  after  the  first  day,  but  Peter  talked  me  out  of  it.  We’ve  been  getting  along  really  well  ...  

 

PETER  

(trying  to  convince  Manifesto)  

I  don’t  even  really  like  the  guy.  He’s  always  whining,  whining  in  that  high  girly  voice  of  his  ...  

 

EDDIE  

...  Peter’s  probably  the  most  honest  and  sincere  guy  here.  

 

PETER  

...  I  mean  if  anyone’s  gay  here,  it’s  Eddie.  He’s  the  real  girl.  Not  Me!!  

 

EDDIE  

Even  if  I  don’t  change  anything  about  myself  while  I’m  here,  I’m  glad  I  met  Peter.  I’m  pretty  sure  we’ll  be  friends  

after  all  this.  

 

PETER  

He’s  the  girl!  

 

Eddie  exits.  

 

MANIFESTO  

Yeah,  he  does  always  whine.  (beat)  What  a  girl!  

 

Peter  and  Manifesto  laugh.  

 

MANIFESTO  CONT’D  

69

(mockingly)    

“Oh,  I’m  Eddie.  I  don’t  like  being  away  from    

my  mommy  and  Bobo-­‐the-­‐Fet  action  doll!”  

 

PETER  

(mocking  Eddie)  

“Yeah,  I’m  so  sad  because  my  balls  haven’t    

dropped  yet.  I  think  I’m  going  to  cry!”

Identities-in-Relation

Within the aforementioned scene we can see homophobic discourse being used to bond Peter and

Manifesto together, while leaving Eddie alone and betrayed by Peter’s words. It is important to normalize

oneself by stigmatizing the feminized other in order to maintain masculine acceptance and repudiate

homosexual stigmatization. In the same way, race can be used as a stigma by which to normalize others and

situate oneself in a position of dominance above the foreigner. We saw this played out earlier with the

characterization of Manifesto as Cuban. When conversation arose around the character of Manifesto, I started to

see similar comments arise within the focus group discussions. In one instance David, was asked what character

in the play he identifies least with:

David stayed fixated on the multicolored shag floor as he gathered his thoughts;

“And probably for me is the Cuban,”

Some members of the group chuckled awkwardly at the classification.

David continued;

“Just… yea, couldn’t identify with that at all.”

There was a long pause, then I probed David a bit further;

“What about him made you feel you couldn’t identify with him?”

David shifts back and forth in his seat, as if to force the chair into a kind of comfortable submission;

70

“Um” a long pause, “just this, I guess… I guess maybe it’s uh, kind of like uh just being, uh, I’m

trying, let me think of the words here, like … just a lot of maybe,” another long pause. “Humph, lets see

… I don’t know, let me think about it.”

The group laughs attempting to ease David’s growing uncomfortability as Raymond confidently jumps

into the discourse;

“I’m going to have agree with David, the character I least relate to is the character I play.

Manifesto… um, mainly because he’s this really… hyper-masculine kind of uh you know, muscle bound

tough guy and I’m really not you know. He really puts up this front as like “Look at me” you know,

“I’m the greatest and no one can beat me or whatever” and I, (sigh) I don’t really see myself as, as really

that at all. Like I don’t put up this front like stay away from me, I try and like welcome people into my

life more than keep them away like that.”

David nods in a agreement, more comfortable in his seat now and addresses the whole group:

“Yea that kind of helps. Um that kind of helps a little because I, I had a, right after I got out of

high school I had a job washing windows and uh one of the lead, uh, uh guys who lead the crew was,

was really like that character and he, he was always like, antagonizing and he was always trying to get

you to react and, and pushing you around and calling you names and stuff and, and I was just so

apathetic like it was really funny ‘cause a lot of the guys in that work crew would just be like you know

would get all like feisty and start arguing, or start pushing, or fighting and you know he was huge and he

could take anyone on the crew

A burst of laughter broke free from Rod’s mouth. David continued:

“and, and he never really messed with me, because he would like push me and I was just like

whatever. Like, Like I just couldn’t relate to that and, and I just didn’t care, and like, just kind of in that

sense I guess. (Long pause) So he got bored with me”.

The whole group laughs with David as I probe a little bit further.

“And left you alone?” I asked.

71

David stopped to think for a while.

“Yea.”

At the moment David mentions “the Cuban”, the group begins to chuckle, in some part due to the

humorous depiction of the character within the play, but also in a type of agreement with David. David could

have said he did not identify with “Manifesto”, but by signaling out the foreignness of Manifesto, David

verbalized the group’s general inability to identify with a Cuban-foreigner; thus, accenting their discomfort

through expressions of humor.

In the second focus group, the assumption that Manifesto cannot be identified with due to his racial

category is brought by Lance when he asks the group, “Would someone just say that they relate to Manifesto

because he is Cuban?” The group, consisting of all white members, again laughs at the perceived “lunacy” of

identifying with an individual of a different racial category.

In the earlier excerpt, we see that it isn’t until later in this exchange, after Raymond expresses his views

of the character Manifesto, that David is able to further articulate his own impressions and lack of identification

of the character Manifesto. While Raymond spoke, David was able to formulate thoughts and impressions

concerning Manifesto. However, David’s new thoughts were intricately linked to the meanings espoused by

Raymond. What happened then was as individuals within the group began to develop ideas and impressions

about Manifesto, they shared them and after they shared their ideas each member began redeveloping a new

idea about Manifesto, informed by the other expressed ideas, eventually creating one standard meaning shared

by the group. This interaction also provided a springboard from which David could express his own experience

with issues of masculinity and thus share his meanings surrounding his own masculinity.

David’s interpersonal relationship with an aggressive co-worker gave him a venue to respond in a type

of passive resistance, not only challenging his co-worker’s attitude but also giving him the opportunity to

present a challenge to the larger established expectations of masculinity as aggressive and dominant. David’s

self-identification was thus, himself based on this type of interaction:

“I just didn’t care, and like, just kind of in that sense I guess”

David’s expressed lack of concern for his co-worker’s action served to present David as unaffected by

the social encounter. However, we might note that years later this was still an experience that David feels is

important enough to recount to the focus group. Therefore we might conclude that this experience David had at

the hands of his co-worker, while he presented it as a inconsequential encounter, in fact seemed to reaffirmed

the importance a particular image for him surrounding gender and race. This excerpt thus highlights the

72

importance of interpersonal stories in the construction of gender and racial perceptions and meanings. This also

exemplifies participation and/or resistance to racial and gender projects on the part of the group.

Almost every participant saw through the contextual grid of his or her interpersonal relationship stories.

One example occurred when Raymond mentioned that he had only one girlfriend in his life and attributed it to

that fact that he is “nerdy … and I, I’m always on the computer and stuff”. For Raymond his nerdiness and

relational void were both interconnected responses to the other. His being nerdy was the result of not having a

girlfriend, and at the same time the reason for why he doesn’t have a girlfriend. When we compare this to the

comment he made earlier about the character Manifesto, we see that his perception about what is masculine has

had an impact on how he perceives his own self worth. Raymond stated:

He really puts up this front as like “Look at me” you know, “I’m the greatest and no one can beat me or

whatever” and I, (sigh) I don’t really see myself as, as really that at all.

Raymond notes that Manifesto’s confidence and social front make him a strong expression of

masculinity, but ultimately concludes that he cannot “see” himself as that sort of man. For Raymond, this lack

of attainment of a strong masculine expression may be the reason for his lack of a girlfriend and ultimately his

social loneliness. Through Raymond’s acknowledgement of his welcoming nature he shows his desire for social

interaction. However, his awareness of the social implications of not having a girlfriend portrays his

understanding of social failure in relationships.

In a different way both Beth and Steve found their unconventional relationships defining attributes that

cover their whole lives.

Steve leaned into the group circle and emphatically proclaimed:

I’m finally in a relationship with you know somebody that I love and you know it’s…we don’t

care about hiding it because we love each other. And there are some people in the community that if

they see us holding hands out in the community they’ll make snide and rude comments and it’s just like,

why should this even be happening, you know, people, people are people and we all should just respect

and…you know.

Beth changed visual directions from the ceiling to Steve’s eyes. She responded to Steve:

Even me and my husband, who is black, we get looks all the time and from both sides of the cultures.

Um, you know, we went to a place down in Broadway. I went to a funeral with him and like, there, it

was really bad. It was kind of hostile there for ME because I was the ONLY white person there and I

understood how he felt in you know Flagstaff because he feels that ways in most rooms. So, I

73

understand, it just like people do not want to accept um, people just as they are, just as truthfully as they

are.

Both Beth and Steve can be seen actively trying to make sense and thus find their individual identity

through the expression of their different, yet similar relationships. This was also a moment where we can see

group meaning construction arise. As Steve explains his interactions with an unaccepting society, Beth is able to

understand the meaning Steve is creating and then join in with his construction, shaping it to fit her context and

social position. In Steve’s case, his sexual orientation made him stand out in his community and thus intimately

became his most prominent self-identifier (Pascoe, 2005). For Beth, race was the most salient aspect of her

social context. Both stories show the impact social identifiers, such as sexual orientation and race can have on

the construction of an individual’s self identification. What this also shows is that, when an individual is placed

on the peripheral of dominant expressions of self, they often become threatened and feel the need to resituates

themselves in a context that allows for acceptance and security.

Mary acknowledges this same idea in the process of constructing identity when she speaks about her

love-hate relationships with men like the Manifesto character. During this talk she also begins to give cues as

how she defines her identity in relation to such men.

I uh hate Manifesto, but I have to admit that I’m attracted to that also.

And I don’t know why, … Candy thinks that she understands men and then they just flip on her and the

Manifesto type men just, will … make pathways. Um and I don’t have that, um ego? I don’t know how

to use people; I’m more the soft kind person. So sometimes I need a Manifesto to navigate through the

world. Even though I can’t stand that arrogance. So, I don’t know, I hate him but also am attracted to

that type.

Through this description Mary situates her in a persona opposite to the hype-masculine character, but yet

still acknowledges that this particular type of masculinity becomes successful and notes how drawn to that sort

of person she can get. In many ways this statement is congruent with Mullaney’s claim concerning

“masculinism”. As Mary’s wrestling match with her conflicting feelings towards this type of masculine man is

much more an attempt to challenge and situate herself within the foundational ideologies that promote a

patriarchal worldview of social arrangements, which, ultimately lead to a justifying of “men’s domination of

women” (Mullaney, 2007:243). This also reveals how women can reproduce hegemonic masculinity through

their own internal expectations. While she challenges these notions, she is also aware of the influence they have

in her life and decision-making.

Stories as Meaning Making:

74

Storytelling becomes an important process, because it’s through the story that the individual can feel

comfortable sharing about themselves without having to come right out and explain it. In much the same way,

the play served as a type a story through which the respondents could express their feelings and opinions, while

not having to explicitly share them. Carrie expresses her concerns with social expectations of femininity

through the describing the character of Candy:

Candy she’s been told what she needs to do to attract a man and to be this sexy. And that’s what she

wants not maybe in the sense that she got but that’s what she desires. And she uses her objects you know

to attract men but as soon as she breaks out of that mold she’s irrational or, you, why are you being such

a crybaby? Why are you all of the sudden so sensitive when obviously all you wanted was sex that’s

why you came up to me and danced around me. You know, she kind of gets punished for breaking out of

that stereotype.

In this process Carrie is able to express her concerns with the expectations surrounding her femininity,

but she doesn’t have to make herself the focus. It is similar to the sitcom convention of a troubled individual

confiding in another person about the problems their “friend” is having. Lance uses this same tactic when he

talks about the pressure he has felt throughout life to affirm his masculinity by feminizing and homosexually

stigmatizing other men by using the character choices of Peter to “pass” the homosexual stigma onto the other

male characters:

Um, I think too a lot of men and young men, growing up especially throughout middle school and high

school, the concept of growing up and being masculine and a manly man is very, very stressed by

society. Um, being able to get a girl, pick up large objects, move things, fix cars, etc. is a concept of

masculine and homosexuality is associated even more so with anti-masculinity…and it’s something you

are afraid of because of this lack of understanding it is felt to be that if you are gay or if you show any

kind of feminine tendencies you are gay. And gay and femininity go together in a person’s mind and that

point in time. And so, to be everything that you need to be masculine, to be a man, you cannot show any

of these things and you cannot act a certain way. And so to be called gay, especially in a public setting

in front of a…someone you look up to, for example the mentors of the three characters, of Eddie, and

Drake, and Peter in front of the mentors and in front of…on TV and things like that. It’s an immediately

defensive reaction that the characters will have. It’s like, “You’re gay. I’m not gay, he’s the gay one.”

And he immediately tries to pass blame onto some else to take the attention off of them and put negative

attention on someone else.

Through the symbols of “Candy” and “Peter”, both Carrie and Lance were able to reflect upon

themselves and the others around them (Plummer, 1995:20). This symbolic reflection gave each respondent the

75

ability to articulate feelings about loneliness and identity, race and sexuality, and their experiences and

interpersonal relationships. In this way, the focus group format, paired with the presentation of sociological

ideas within Pick-Up Artist: The Musical was able to produce an environment that was conducive to public

discourse. I feel that as more forums such as this begin to emerge, we will be able to see social movements that

challenge oppressive hegemonic ideologies and eventually produce social ideological change.

“Run That By Me One More Time”: Summarizing My Methods

By using the interpretations gathered from the focus groups, I have been able to see not only how

individuals and collective groups construct and develop meanings, but I have also been able to ascertain how the

medium of theatre can be used as a forum for challenging hegemonic ideals within a society. The theatre format

gave the participants social objects with which to identify (Blumer, 1969:11). Once identified, these social

objects served as mediators through which the participants could express views and opinions that they might

otherwise feel uncomfortable talking about in a group setting. As conversation emerged, certain assumptions

were challenge and discussed. Through this discourse, new meanings were able to emerge and other meanings

were solidified.

By grounding my musical construction in research and sociological literature, I have been able to

present abstract ideas and predictive patterns in a format accessible to a large audience. And, by using focus

groups to understand participant interpretations and grounded theory and ethnographic summaries to examine

the implications of those interpretations, I have been able to give voice to a group of people not normally

involved within the field of Sociology. The focus group format has also allowed for gender projects to emerge.

Just the other day one of the actors who participated within the play came up to me and recounted this story.

“I was in one of my acting classes when out of the blue a girl started talking about ‘bitch drinks’. She

said they were frilly drinks that gay men usually drink. I looked her right in the eyes and said, ‘What are

you implying? That gay men are bitches and less manly just because they express their manhood in a

different way? You need to see ‘Pick-Up Artist: The Musical’!”

He participated in a gender project! He was able to take the ideas presented within the play and

discussed during the focus groups and create a moment where hegemonic assumptions about masculinity were

challenged. Now his retort to the novice bartender will not change our social perceptions overnight, but as more

people begin to become exposed and encouraged to challenge the status quo, the more likely it will be that we

will see social change.

As I continue on this exploratory research endeavor, I am constantly becoming more and more

exuberant at the thought of the academic possibilities. By taking the principles of ‘ethnotheatre’ a step further,

we will see the doors for research presentation open up. As possible mediums of popular culture become viable

vehicles for academic presentation, “not to create a commercial Broadway hit, but to provide a forum for artists

76

with social vision and audiences with social need” (Saldaña, 2005:8), it is possible that we will start to see

negative mainstream ideological presentations get openly challenged and changed.

I’m Only Human!!! : Limits to My Research

I was eleven when I first got stitches. I was playing around on my families little chicken coop

completely oblivious to my surroundings. I was convinced that gravity was no match for my determination and

agility. However, with one ill-placed step my left leg followed the Pied Piper of Gravity right into the angry end

of a nail. I learned a lot that day. I learned that gravity always has the last word. I learned that no matter how

quick you are at intramural dodge ball, if you step in poop, you’re bound to slip. And I learned that within every

great adventure lies an endless sea of limitations and it won’t do you any good ignoring them, you might end up

with a leg full of stitches.

Limitations are a natural part of the research process and my research has not been any different. As I

reflect back on this project I see three main limitations that arose within my research.

The first limitation is in reflection of the play construction. I do not come from a formal/trained

background in either script writing or music composition. Due to this, I saw two secondary limitations arise in

the production and produce-ability of Pick-Up Artist: The Musical. First, when looking at the technicality of the

script, it will be seen that I have a limited vocabulary for communicating various types of stage directions or

dramatic nuances. This can result in confusion and misunderstandings when other performers try to present this

play or read the script. If this occurs it could create a limited performance (or none all together) and thus, not

have the full-intended affect for the audience and play participants.

The second limitation in the production and produce-ability of the musical was in my informal training

in the music construction. This resulted in me crafting the songs through the use of lead sheets (which consists

of chords over words) and audio recordings of the vocals (melodies and harmonies). This means that anyone

who would like to perform this play would have to learn the rhythms and meter of the songs through repetitious

listening of a recorded version. This becomes limiting and tedious and can become a hindrance to the furthering

of gender projects through multiple performances with multiple casts. In order for me to have multiple casts and

performances, I will have to find a way to standardize the musical score so that that it is easier for more people

to perform.

The second primary limitation that I found was in the presentation of Pick-up Artist: The Musical. Once

again, due to constraints of time and finances, the production of the play was limited and could only be

performed as a dramatic/staged reading instead of being able to utilize all the elements of a theatrical

performance. This means that actors worked from scripts, and performed their lines with limited “blocking”

(action on stage). We also only had limited time for rehearsal; therefore, we weren’t able to work with the

77

intention and depth of all the characters. As a result, subtle nuances, which often get conveyed through the

other tools of the theatre, very likely got overlooked or unstated all together.

The third limitation, and ultimately my most intense, arose during my construction and implementation

of the focus groups. My original intent was to sample five focus groups; two consisting of the play participants

and three consisting of audience members from a Sociology 101 class. My intention was to analyze data from a

more diverse group during the various stages that Plummer called the interactions of storytelling (producer,

coaxer, consumer) or in our case, theoretical storytelling. It is also a pretty standard rule that the more

information and data you gather, the easier it is to develop your analysis.

The plan for getting SOC 101 students to the play and then entreating them to stay involved my

charismatic personality (tenuous I know) and the carrot of extra credit (much more substantial). This is an

important element that I did not fully take into consideration: the degree of pay-off is essential is ensuring

research participants. By not offering extra credit points relative to the amount of effort that was being asked of

the students I found that no one wanted to bite. Even though I created sign-up sheets and had each student

interested in participating sign their names (I wanted it to be in blood, but apparently the university frowns upon

poking their students with needles), this principle of relative reward held firm.

In addition, I had the participants provide two ways in which I could contact them on the sign-up sheet.

Two weeks before the performance date I sent an email to all 25 students that signed up, reminding them of the

date and time of the performance and giving them a quick overview of how the evening would progress. A

week out, I sent yet another email reminding them of the performance date, and time and praising them for their

willingness to be part of this project. The day before, life had gone into hyper-drive. I was frantically running

around the city searching, like Magellan, for the final items needed for the performance. I was a mess. Luckily,

I was able to find a few spare minutes and send out one last email reminding the students of the “whens” and

“wheres”. Everything was in place.

It was thirty minutes before the show was to start. My focus group facilitators and moderators were all

there8, but no participants. Fifteen minutes. Ten minutes, five minutes and no one came! I could wait no longer

… the show must go on! So on it went. We performed our staged reading and still, no participants. Fortunately,

some quick thinkers surrounded me and they suggested that I use my focus group moderators and observers for

at least one extra focus group. After all three is better than two. The group agreed, the evening concluded and I

returned home with three focus group tapes and observation notebooks instead of five.

I took three days respite and then decided it would be valuable to start transcribing the audiotape onto

the computer. I went to our spur-of-the-moment group, since I didn’t sit in on this focus group conversation. I

got my hot cup of coffee, sat down before my computer and pressed “PLAY”. Nothing. I must not have done

something right. I sat down again and pressed “PLAY”. Still, nothing. I scoured the tape back and fourth, front 8 The moderators and observers were volunteers from a Sociology 654 (Methods) graduate class.

78

and back and could find absolutely nothing. I tried to reassure myself that two is still better than one, or none.

However the damage was still done.

As a result of these two focus group fiascoes, I encountered yet another two secondary limitations. Since

I only had two focus groups to pull from, I was not able to add full validation for my focus group responses. As

such, I had to change my use of the focus groups from a set of data from which I could draw broader

generalized conclusions about people groups to a representation of the focus group individuals. This inspired

my use of participant voices as a main feature in my analysis.

In the future, I would encourage myself and other researchers to become obsessive with checking their

equipment. There is also great merit, when using other researchers as moderators and observers, to provide as

much information and access to the recording equipment they will be using as possible. It was not fair, on my

part, to assume the moderator would feel comfortable using the recording device. It is the primary researcher’s

job to walk through the fundamental and base operations of each piece of equipment to insure that as many

obstacles as possible have been removed.

In much the same way, another secondary limitation arose out of my focus groups and the range they

provide. Due to time constraints and funding (as in ‘none’), I was only able to perform the musical once for an

audience. With more presentations, I would have been able to generate saturation in my analysis that is not

available now. Due to my selective audience, I have data that reflects only a small part of Flagstaff’s

community. A more diverse sample group would allow for a larger variety of meanings to be heard.

Despite these limitations, I was still able to complete my research (this is me, in retrospect, trying to see

the glass as half-full). Like with any research design, elements and questions will always have to be refined and

restructured as the research unfolds. In the future, I would suggest that researchers target a mainstream

audience. By this I mean, producing sociological theatre in a way that encourages people from all areas of social

life to come and see it. From this open-ended audience pool, I would suggest sampling out members for focus

group participation. A great way to get a willing sample would be to offer free admission for those audience

members open to participate in the focus groups(a more substantial carrot than my simple extra credit). Through

this, the researcher will be able span a larger section of social understanding and meanings and thus, gain a

more diverse understanding of the power of pop-culture in promoting social discourse and deconstructing

stereotypes and ideologies.

79

CHAPTER 7 There Is No Curtain Call

When I mentioned my methodological goals to some people, the responses often went like this:

“Ambitious, huh?” or “You plan on graduating, when?” Then there’s my favorite, “What are you going to do

with that degree?” But, whatever the response, mine always stayed the same, “Ambitious, yes. But is it worth

it? Absolutely!”

I used to think that my sociological journey began the day I fortuitously signed up for my Sociology 101

course. I see now that that is not the case. When I walked across that aromatic high school theatre stage, I was

doing Sociology. When I fought to maintain my pine-scented castle in the sky, I was doing Sociology. When I

was contemplating the true meaning of football’s “hell-week” and yes, even when I ignored my upbringing and

ridiculed Mitchell Brady, just to move up on the social ladder, I was doing Sociology. From VH1 television

shows, to musicals, to stitches and scars, my whole life has been a sociological journey, leading me to this

place.

I have chosen to redefine Applied Sociology. It is no longer just about what we do on the research field,

but who we become through the process. As some of us deconstruct ideological assumptions within our society,

understanding who we become through that process will enable us to understand what ideological assumptions

we leave behind. Just like neo-Gramscian hegemony, we are always in a process of presenting, redefining and

incorporating ideas and ideologies. Taking who we have become and presenting it to our society, as public

sociologists, through contemporary social mediums, we get the opportunity to participate in Applied Sociology.

I chose to practice Applied Sociology through the form and function of the theatre. How will you chose to apply

Sociology in your social context?

What Just Happened!?!

80

We have just been on a long journey together. It was tedious at times, but we have made it to the end.

“Land HO!” cries one the many voices in my head. We will soon dock ship and go our separate ways. But

promise me, no tears. Not because it wouldn’t be manly, but because we have yet another adventure ahead of us

as soon as you put down this paper and continue with your daily activities; an adventure of massive proportions.

Its called “Life.” No I’m not speaking about the game or delicious cereal, I’m referring to the social choices and

interactions we each chose to make on a daily basis. As we get ready to embark on our new journey, I would

like to remind us of a few things we learned on our nautical voyage through this sea of academic works.

First, it is good to remember that, whether you are a Hannah Montana fan, or think your body is truly

too “bootylisious”, or whether you have created cyber communities that bash Brittany for her lackluster

performance at the V.M.A.’s, we are all impacted by popular culture. In the same way, Blumer showed us that

we learn how to interact through the observation and reproduction of social objects. In contemporary American

culture, many of the objects we are receiving are products of a neo-Gramscian development of popular culture;

articulation and incorporation. As these objects become definitive elements of our identities, we construct

performances that articulate the social objects we want others to perceive. These performances take place on a

variety of social stages and consist of a multitude of techniques and theatrical tools.

One of these very important social tools is the process of social storytelling. This is the next principle we

should be sure to bring with us on our next journey. When we understand the power of stories in shaping our

understanding and social meanings, we can transcend the role of passive social actor and become active social

creators.

As we create meaning through social interactions, it is also important to become cognizant of the various

social venues available through which stories can be shared, and thus new meanings developed. Theatre is one

of those accessible and viable venues that can be used. Theatre has been used in many countries as a catalyst for

social change and reform (Stirling, 1963; Blake, 1976; Boal, 1979; Taylor, 2003; Boon and Plastow, 2004). We

must, therefore, stay attuned to the opportunities theatre, as well as other pop-cultural venues present for the

promotions of social change.

In order to do this, we must cultivate critical responses to the hegemonic discourse within our society, as

well as produce alternative representations of social choices. This will be the most critical tool to take with us

on our next social adventure. This tool functions as our critical compass, challenging us to stay on course,

headed North, even when it seems like the sun is setting in the West.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Henry A. Giroux wrote an article critiquing images presented in a number of Disney animated films.

Concluding his critique, Giroux offered seven lessons that he felt could be learned from such a critique and that

81

could help us to be insightful and proactive in choosing what media we consume. I feel that these lessons could

and should be applied to the wider context of media consumption and creation.

First, it is important that we take seriously the medium of popular culture as a pedagogical site of

learning and solidifying values and beliefs, especially for youth in America. Giroux suggests that schools and

academic institutions should acknowledge this cultural pedagogy and construct curriculums that teach children

tools for critically analyzing pop-cultural presentations. As a result of this media informed curriculum, children

would learn about gender issues and resolutions at a young age, and those who don’t fit into the standard

hegemonic masculine expression would receive moments where their differences were included and honored,

thus giving them venues for validation.

Along the same lines, it is important for all adult authority groups to concern themselves with popular

cultural images and issues. This is particularly important in that adults have a high degree of control over youth

in America and choices they make can have significant implications for the lives of children (Stern, 2005).

Adults decide laws and curriculum as well as the cultural capital that is presented within the home environment.

Therefore, it is at the adult level that popular images presented within the media should not only be challenged,

but new images should be created and presented in a way that helps to inform and encourage individuals to step

out of their assumptions.

Third, Giroux highlights the multiple spheres controlled by the Disney Company (economics,

consumption, and culture) and suggests that as we critique we should also pay attention to the “range of

relations of power” (Giroux, 2004:177). In relation to gender, we can see how hegemonic ideologies are used to

maintain statuses of economic power. As I mentioned earlier, gender projects are any type of action, whether it

be interpersonal or on a larger scale, that promotes a particular ideological bent. When we acknowledge the

relations of power existent within the pop-cultural communities we can gain a better understanding of how we

can work within the system to challenge its oppressive practices and presented ideas.

Fourth, “cultural workers and educators need to insert the political and pedagogical back into the

discourse of entertainment” (Giroux, 2004:177). American media is situated within a political environment and

it would be irresponsible of educators and cultural workers to ignore this overlap. Similar to the third lesson, it

will be important within a critique of pop-cultural images to create pop-culture “intertextually and from a

transnational perspective” (Giroux, 2004:178). With this approach, we can begin to understand how hegemonic

images operate and affect “particular spaces of power, specific localities, and differentiated transnational

locations” (Giroux, 2004:178), and present alternatives similar in effectiveness.

The next two lessons link together and state that it is important to not just see media institutions as

simply cultural participants, but we must also acknowledge their close ties to corporate power and understand

their identity “within a larger framework of neoliberal capitalistic relations” (Giroux, 2004:179). As such, it is

important for individuals within society to devise ways to hold such institutions accountable for the images they

82

produce (i.e. pornography industries and the images and expectations of masculine dominance and feminine

submission they promote). This is not a promotion of censorship, but an encouragement for consumers to

promote dialogue between each other and encourage creative exchange between themselves and the media

producers. This means movie groups that continually produce images that reinforce detrimental hegemonic

expressions of masculinity should be recognized as influential to larger society rather than just casually chided.

Such images must be actively challenged and changed through discourse, giving equal representation (in their

scope of action and valence of their role) to oppressed and excluded social groups.

Finally, the next lesson goes one more step and states the imperative nature of involving authority

figures in the acknowledgment and creation of the multiple interpretations of media images from diverse groups

of children. For Giroux this involves not only an understanding of the changing definitions of what it means to

be “literate” (simply learning from traditional “book” literature is no longer sufficient, we must become literate

in popular cultural forms as well), but also teaching individuals how to develop the skills and technology that

will allow them to produce popular culture. As this occurs, individuals will gain even more opportunities to

challenge the hegemonic stereotypes of mainstream pop-cultural imagery. Giving voice to diverse groups is

congruent with the proposition made by Steinberg and Kincheloe, which acknowledges every member of

society as active participants in their own social development, while at the same time still being influenced by

the social position they occupy.

Never before has access to creative outlets been so accessible. Bands are becoming overnight sensations

through Myspace, and artists are finding new ways to access a larger audience without having to go through

mega corporations. Unfortunately, much of what is being produced is still heavily entrenched in these

oppressive ideologies that serve those in power. It is time to start experimenting as social scientists with new

culturally relevant forms of research presentation and ideological expression.

THERE  IS  NO  CURTAIN  CALL.    

THE  CHOICE  IS  UP  TO  YOU.  

THERE’LL  BE  NO  LOUD  APPLAUSE,    

JUST  WHAT  WE  FINALLY  CHOOSE  TO  DO.    

NOW  WHEN  YOU  LEAVE  YOUR  SEATS,    

PLEASE  REMEMBER  WHAT  YOU’VE  SEEN.    

NO  DREAMS  BEEN  MADE,    

BUILD  FROM  YESTERDAY    

AND  MAKE  CHOICES  THAT  WILL  MEAN  THAT  …    

THERE  IS  NO  CURTAIN  CALL.  

83

Bibliography

Alexander, Bryant K. 2005. “Performance Ethnography: The Reenacting and Inciting of Culture”. In ed.

Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. (Pp. 411-

441). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Arciniega, Miguel G. & Thomas C. Anderson. 2008. “Toward a Fuller Conception of Machismo: Development

of a Traditional Machismo and Caballerismo Scale”. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 55:1, Pp. 19-

33.

Avicolli, Tommi. 1986. “He Defies You Still: Memoirs of a Sissy”. Pp. 137-142 in Reconstructing Gender: A

Multicultural Anthology, 3rd Edition. Edited by Estelle Disch. 2003. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Companies, Inc.

Bagley, C., and M.B. Cancienne, eds. 2002. Dancing the Data. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

Berg, Bruce L. 2004. Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences, 5th Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. London, England: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Blake, Elizabeth. 1979. “Who’s Counting?: A Play On Attitudes Toward Aging”. From Plays for Living.

PLAYS for LIVING. New York: NY

Boal, Augusto. 1979. The Theatre Of The Oppressed. London, England: Pluto Press.

Bonney, J., ed. 2000. Extreme Exposure: An Anthology of Solo Performance Texts From The Twentieth Century.

New York: Theatre Communications Group.

84

Boon, Richard and Jane Plastow. 2004. Theatre and Empowerment. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge

University Press.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of

Empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge

Crow, B.K. 1988. “Conversational Performance and the Performance of Conversation”. The Drama Review

32(3):23-54.

Dalley-Trim, 2007.

Denzin, Norman K. 2003(a). Performance Ethnography: Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Culture.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

_______________. 2003(b). “The Call to Performance”. Symbolic Interaction, V.26(1): 187-207.

Diamond, C.T. Patrick, and Carol A. Mullen, eds. 2000. “Rescripting the Script and Rewriting the Paper: Taking

Research To the ‘Edge of the Exploratory’”. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 1, Article

4. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from http://ijea.asu.edu/v1n4/.

Donovan, Brian. 1998. “Political Consequences of Private Authority: Promise Keepers and the Transformation

of Hegemonic Masculinity”. Theory and Society. 27:817-843.

Downs, William Missouri & Robin U. Russin. 2004. Naked Playwriting: The Art, The Craft, and The Life Laid

Bare. Los Angeles, CA: Silman-James Press.

Eisner, E. 1997. “The Promise and Perils of Alternative Forms of Data Representation”. Educational

Researcher. 26(6):4-10.

Emslie, Carol, Damien Ridge, Sue Ziebland, and Kate Hunt. 2006. “Men’s Accounts of Depression:

Reconstructing or Resisting Hegemonic Masculinity?” Social Science and Medicine. 62(9): 2246-2257.

Ferguson, Ann. 2000. “Making a Name For Yourself: Transgressive Acts and Gender Performance”. Pp. 111-

123 in Men’s Lives: Seventh Edition, edited by Micheal S. Kimmel and Michael A. Messner. 2007.

Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gallagher, Sally K. and Sabrina L. Wood. 2005. “Godly Manhood Going Wild?: Transformations in

Conservative Protestant Masculinity”. Sociology of Religion. 66(2):135-160.

Giddens, Anthony. 1987. Social Theory and Modern Sociology.

Giroux, Henry A. 2004. “Are Disney Movies Good For Your Kids?” Pp. 164-180 in Kinderculture: The

Corporate Construction of Childhood 2nd Edition by Shirley R. Steinberg and Joe L. Kincheloe.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York, NY: Anchor Book.

____________. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York, NY: Simon and

Schuster, Inc.

Golden-Biddle, Karen and Karen Locke. 2007. Composing Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

85

Griffin, Susan. 1981. Pornography and Silence. New York, NY: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.

Griffiths, Mark. 2001. “Sex on the Internet: Observations and Implications for Internet Sex Addiction”. The

Journal of Sex Research. 38:333-342.

Guba, Egon G. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1994. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research” Pp. 105-117 in

Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Hamera, J. 1999. “Editor’s Notes”. Text and Performance Quarterly, 19(2):106.

Hochschild, Arlie. 2003. The Second Shift. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Holman Jones, S. 2005. “Autoethnography: Making the Personal Political”. In ed. Norman K. Denzin and

Yvonna S. Lincoln, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. Pp. 763-791. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Jordan, Ellen & Angela Cowan. 1995. “Warrior Narratives in the Kindergarten Classroom: Renegotiating the

Social Context?” Pp. 81-93 in Men’s Lives: Seventh Edition, edited by Micheal S. Kimmel and Michael

A. Messner. 2007. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Kern, Rodger, Steven Stack, Ira Wasserman. 2004. “Adult Social Bonds and Use of Internet Pornography.”

Social Science Quarterly. Vl.85#1, pp.75-88.

Kimmel, Michael S.. 1994. “Masculinity As Homophobia”. Pp. 103-109 in Reconstructing Gender: A

Multicultural Anthology, 3rd Edition. Edited by Estelle Disch. 2003. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Companies, Inc.

Kincheloe, Joe L. and Peter L. McLaren. 1994. “Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research” Pp. 138-

157 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kivel, Paul. 1984. “The Act-Like-A-Man Box”. Pp. 148-150 in Men’s Lives: Seventh Edition, edited by Micheal

S. Kimmel and Michael A. Messner. 2007. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Lemoncheck, Linda. 1994 “What’s Wrong with Being a Sex Object?”. Pp.199-206 in Living With

Contradictions: Controversies in Feminist Social Ethics, edited by Alison M. Jaggar. Boulder,

Colorado: Westview Press, Inc.

Longino, Helen E.. 1994. “Pornography, Oppression, and Freedom: A Closer Look”. Pp. 154-161 in Living With

Contradictions: Controversies in Feminist Social Ethics, edited by Alison M. Jaggar. Boulder,

Colorado: Westview Press, Inc.

Lyman, Peter. 1987. “The Fraternal Bond as a Joking Relationship: A Case Study of the Role of Sexist Jokes in

Male Group Bonding”. Pp. 153-162 in Men’s Lives: Seventh Edition, edited by Micheal S. Kimmel and

Michael A. Messner. 2007. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

86

Mahoney, Dan. 2007. “Constructing Reflexive Fieldwork Relationships: Narrating My Collaborative

Storytelling Methodology”. Qualitative Inquiry. V.13(4): 573-594.

Marshall, Catherine and Gretchen B. Rossman. 2006. Designing Qualitative Research, 4th Edition. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Messner, Michael A. 2002. Taking the Field: Women, Men, and Sports. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press.

Mienczakowski, Jim. 1995. “The Theater of Ethnography: The Reconstruction of Ethnography Into Theater

With Emancipatory Potential”. Qualitative Inquiry. V.1(3):360-375.

________________. 1997. “Theatre of Change”. Research in Drama Education. V.1(2):159-172.

Miller, Michelle. 1998. “(Re)presenting Voices in Dramatically Scripted Research”. Pp. 67-78 in Fiction and

Social Research: by Fire and Ice, edited by Anna Banks and Stephen P. Banks. Walnut Creek, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Morgan, David. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mullaney, Jamie L. 2007. “Telling It Like a Man: Masculinities and Battering Men’s Accounts of Their

Violence”. Men and Masculinities. V.10(2): 222-247.

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1987. Racial Formation In The United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s.

New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Parasecoli, Fabio. 2007. “Bootylicious: Food and the Female Body in Contemporary Black Pop Culture”.

Women’s Study Quarterly. 35:110-126.

Pascoe, C.J.. 2005. “’Dude, You’re a Fag’: Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse”. Pp. 124-126 in

Men’s Lives: Seventh Edition, edited by Micheal S. Kimmel and Michael A. Messner. 2007. Boston,

MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Payne, Leanne. 1995. Crisis in Masculinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.

Philaretou, Andreas G., Katherine R. Allen, Ahmed Y. Mahfouz,. 2005. “Use of Internet Pornography and

Men’s Well-Being.” International Journal of Men’s Health Vol.4, No.2 pp.149-169.

Plummer, Ken. 1995. Telling Sexual Stories: Power, Change, and Social Worlds. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pollack, William. 1998. “Inside the World of Boys: Behind the Mask of Masculinity”. Pp.219-227 in

Reconstructing Gender: A Multicultural Anthology, 3rd Edition. Edited by Estelle Disch. 2003.. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc

Rodriguez, Clara E.. 2000. Changing Race: Latinos, the Census, and the History of Ethnicity in the United

States. New York, NY: New York Press.

Rossiter, Kate, Pia Kontos, Angela Colantonio, Julie Gilbert, Julie Gray, Michelle Keightley. 2008. “Staging

Data: Theatre As a Tool For Analysis and Knowledge Transfer in Health Research”. Social Science &

Medicine. 66:130-146.

87

Sabo, Don. 1994. “The Myth Of The Sexual Athlete”. Pp. 263-267 in Reconstructing Gender: A Multicultural

Anthology, 3rd Edition. Edited by Estelle Disch. 2003. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Saldaña, Johnny. 2005. Ethnodrama: An Anthology of Reality Theatre. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Smiley, John. 2005. Playwriting: The Structure of Action. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Spillman, Lyn. 2002. “Introduction: Culture and Cultural Sociology”. Pp. 1-15 in Cultural Sociology, edited by

Lyn Spillman. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.

Steinberg, Shirley R. and Joe L. Kincheloe. 2004. Kinderculture: The Corporate Construction of Childhood.

Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.

Stern, Karl. 1985. The Flight from Woman. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House Publishers.

Sternberg, Patricia and Antonina Garcia. 1989 Sociodrama: Who’s In Your Shoes?. Westport, CT: Praeger

Publishers.

Stobbe, Lineke. 2005. “Doing Machismo: Legitimating Speech Acts as a Selection Discourse”. Gender, Work

and Organization. 12:2, Pp. 105-123.

Storey, John. 1998. An Introduction to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 2nd Edition. Rowlands Castle,

Hants: Prentice-Hall.

Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for

Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

________________________. 1994. “Grounded Theory Methodology” Pp. 273-285 in Handbook of Qualitative

Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc.

The Pick-Up Artist. Premiered August 6, 2007. 3 Ball Entertainment and VH1 Production.

Vincent, B. 2005. “Re-Presenting the Homosexual Adolescent Experience: A Study of Applied Theatre,

Sexuality and the Voices Project”. Performance at the American Educational Research Association

Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

88

Appendix – A:

“Act-Like-A-Man” Box by Paul Kivel, 1984

Verbal Physical

Abuse: Abuse:

89

wimp►

girl►

sissy►

mamma’s

boy►

nerd►

punk►

mark►

bitch►

tough have money

aggressive never ask for help

competitive angry

anger

in control sadness yell

love

no feelings connection intimidate

confusion

don’t cry low self-worth responsible

resentment

take charge curiosity take it

excitement

don’t make isolation don’t back down

mistakes

succeed have sex with women

◄hit/beat

up

◄teased

◄isolated

◄rejected

◄forced to

play sports

◄sexual

assault

Appendix –B:

Focus Group Agreement Form For Maintaining Confidentiality

Project Title: “Pick-Up Artist- The Musical”: Understanding Individual and Group Meanings Through Pop-

Cultural Presentations

Dear Participants,

90

You have agreed to participate in a focus group for research purposes conducted through Northern Arizona

University. In order to move forward with this project, it is crucial that each focus group member and moderator

sign the Group Agreement Form, which aims to maintain the confidentiality of group members. By signing this

form, you are agreeing to the following:

1) I will not under any circumstances disclose information concerning other group members to other individuals,

including names and other identifiable characteristics.

2) I agree to keep all information disclosed during focus group participation within the focus group.

3) I agree to respect other members of the focus group, as well as their opinions, beliefs and values, and will under

no circumstances make derogatory comments or gestures towards the other members of the group.

If for any reason you feel that you are unable to comply with the items listed above, then please do not sign this

document and withdraw from research participation, for it is important that each member is ensured that they

are sharing in a safe and confidential environment.

_____________________ _____________________

Group Moderator Research Observer

_________________ _____________________ _____________________

Participant Participant Participant

_________________ _____________________ _____________________

Participant Participant Participant

_____________________ _____________________

Participant Participant

Appendix –C:

Focus Group Questions

1. In the play, “Pick-Up Artist: The Musical”, which character did you identify with the most? Why?

In the play, “Pick-Up Artist: The Musical”, which character did you identify with the least? Why?

2. How would you describe that character to someone who hasn’t seen the play before?

91

3. How was masculinity portrayed? In your opinion, what lead to the jailing of Peter and Manifesto? What lead

to the actions of Drake?

4. How was femininity portrayed? What implications did that have for the female characters?

5. How do the ideas presented in this play relate to ideas portrayed in mainstream media? How do they differ?