Christine Tulley: Contradictory Identities/Rethinking Assumptions
When first listening to Rohan’s “Writing about Boys”in tandem with “Music Story,” students often argue that keeping a diary is a more feminist activity because a female narrator tells her story through her own words in the privacy of the diary. Rohan explores how the practices of keeping a first journal and, later, writing a memoir were directly influenced by her 7th grade boyfriend Dave, even into adulthood.
After first listening to this narrative, students note that Rohan, unlike Panter, often peppers her narrative with commentary such as “I don’t know what this means for gender roles, but…” or “that’s probably not feminist but…”. Students also often observe that Rohan seems less assured than Panter from these comments.
In this clip, Rohan deliberately downplays the importance of her literacy narrative. Later comments such as the fact that her dad was a newspaper reporter and that her attraction to Dave was likely Freudian because he served as a similar role model also stand out as markers of an unequal (and perhaps unrequited) relationship. Many students comment that a large part of this narrative is actually about Dave’s literacy practices and his strength as a memoir writer (a point which Rohan herself acknowledges).
"Rohan downplaying the importance of her literacy narrative" Video File
(transcript)
Some students have also pointed out that they make assumptions about Rohan as a “boy crazy” teen because they actually see her in her video narrative, whereas they read Panter as the one who is pursued, though her audio narrative does not provide visuals.
When pressed, a few students in the course note that Panter seems calm and assured about the fact that boys want to make mix tapes for her, but Rohan seems nervous and unable to move on from her ex-boyfriend (which they judge from her visual presence). Rohan fidgets, looks around, and laughs self-consciously in contrast to Panter's calm self-assurance.
"Rohan asking where to look" Video File
(transcript)
Further complicating the message, students are immediately aware of Rohan “being filmed.” An attractive female, she is the subject of the camera and is clearly aware of its presence, stepping outside of her narrative to acknowledge it, which opens up a useful discussion of Mulvey’s scopophilia—i.e. the pleasure of looking (Mulvey, 1975), as a corresponding reading during the semester.
Still, after listening to her narrative again students frequently uncover hints of an independent persona and perhaps a competitive streak. For example, Rohan concludes her narrative noting that she feels competition with him since “his memoir was published first.” Many argue that in the process of composing her literacy narrative and using her voice to articulate her relationship with Dave, Rohan attempts to rebalance her relationship with him.
Unlike “Music Story,” Rohan’s narrative does not indicate a clear break from the male figure who influenced her composing process. In this sense “Music Story” appears more predictive as to Panter’s current status at the end of her narrative as a self-assured composer. We are left more uncertain as to Rohan’s outcome. Does she publish her memoir? Do Rohan and Dave get back together? As a few students inevitably point out, she seems to have some lingering baggage with him.
After comparing the two narratives, students frequently comment that in contrast to Rohan, Panter appears to play a more self-assured composer who clearly influences her boyfriends’ composing processes. As evidence, they observe that she serves as a muse and continues to make her own mix tapes both before and after these early experiences with boyfriends. We don’t get the same sense from Rohan that Dave was as influenced by his relationship with her. Though it would be easy to argue that one narrative is more feminist than the other, students find that both narratives offer contradictory moments as narrators construct their literacy practices through the lens of romantic relationships. These contradictions illustrate how complexly gender is biologically and socially constructed through language and the local histories to which Kristine Blair refers. Students also recognize that these contradictions are mediated by technologies that can demonstrate technological prowess (Panter’s editing skills, or her access to an experienced sound editor). Students also point out that the mediated naturality of these narratives can serve to focus on human flaws or highlight biological markers by featuring unedited visual narratives that capture facial expressions and body language. When the narratives are featured side by side, such juxtaposition poses interesting dilemmas that are ripe for feminist research conducted by the gender studies class.