Effects of social persuasion on attitudes
Sep. 18th, 2005 12:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatThe period came along with the rain, so feeling less irritable and cranky. No longer feel as if a monster is inside me clawing at my insides trying to get out. I envy people who aren't sensitive to the weather. I, unfortunately am, hence the reason I do not live in areas of the country where it rains about 70% of the time.
Social Psychology continues to fascinate. Been reading The Social Animal by Elliot Aronson, Ninth Edition for class. Clarified a few things.
One there is a difference between having an opinion and an attitude about something. Opinions can be easily changed, attitudes however are incredibly difficult to change. An opinion is what a person believes to be factually true - ie. New York is hot in the summer and there are approximately 12 million people lieving in NYC.
Opinions are primarily cognitive - they take place in our heads rather than our hearts. They can also be changed by good clear evidence to the contrary.
An attitude on the other hand is an opinion that contains an evaluative and emotional component. These aren't necessarly logical and can be influenced by numerous variables. ie. Our opinions about the characters and relationships on the TV show Buffy The Vampire Slayer or in regards to Spike and Angel are "attitudes" not opinions.
I was thinking about this while reading the chapter on mass communication, propaganda and persuasion and realized something interesting. Before I came online in 2002, I enjoyed the character of Angel, but had grown tired of the series due largely to the baby storyline. People online persuaded me to give the series another chance and I did, finding myself intrigued by the characters Wes, Lilah, Angel and Connor. As time wore on however, my interactions with others online caused an attitude adjustment, after a period of time I found myself beginning to dislike the character of Angel and oddly enough the actor portraying him. I liked the character fine if I was not interacting with any of the fans and if I did not discuss him. But whenever I read anyone's post or any fan's interest in the character or a fanfic centered on the character - I found I despised the character and had a completely negative attitude. Not necessarily logical so much as a gut reaction. According to studies conducted by social psychologists we can be persuaded to dislike or like something based on the "attractiveness" of the person doing the persuading or commonality of interest with that person. For instance, in one study, participants were told the Neo-Nazis favored a certain trival item - people found themselves rejecting that item because Neo-Nazis favored it. This tends to work with more trivial items that don't require a great deal of thought, although it can work with more important ideas as well. Is it possible that my opinion of a television character was influenced by my interactions with people who loved that character?
The answer a qualified, yes. I qualify that answer because there's another component that should be addressed - how much was do to the individual poster's personality and how much of my reaction was due to how they argued their points or the "nature" or "reasons" stated? You could argue about 50/50 or 60/40, but actually
it's more complicated. For instance, at a recent gathering of BTVS/ATS fans, the majority of the people at the gathering were Angel fans and preferred the B/A relationship to the B/S one, one of the people showed me a series of vids she had created of the show. I liked the person showing the vids. I also liked the other person who joined us to watch them. One of the people - S, the other spectator, stated a strong preference for the B/A relationship, while L declared herself to be neutral. Her opinion was B/S was all about fighting and B/A was all about kissing. S agreed stating how she much preferred to watch B/A and even oohed and awed over my shoulder as the vid was being shown. After watching the two vids, I had an interesting emotional reaction - I had no desire to see an episode of the early seasons of BTVS, felt an intense dislike for the B/A relationship, and was bored watching the vids on the screen, although I politely nodded and suppressed these feelings. The vid did the opposite from what the maker intended, instead of reminding me of what was good and romantic about the characters and instilling a love of them or interest in the series, it made me wonder why I'd bothered with it and what a load of romantic sappy crap. The first vid, B/S, where the vid maker kept telling me that this relationship was all about fighting and clearly a train wreck, shown prior, made me feel quilty for being turned on. And annoyed. Same experience online - my reaction often had more to do with how and what the person was saying than who they were, since obviously you have no clue on most of these boards - people tend to be pretty anynomous - it's how the phrase their opinions that influence or persuade.
Persuasion notes Aronson, while discussing political issues such as health care reform not tv characters, is predicated on how you approach the audience and when. In several studies they determined that people tended to ignore or deny something if it was forced upon them. If someone says - this is "good" for you and this is "bad" for you - a la Mom and Dad telling you to eat green beans instead of ice cream, you are more likely to ignore them and do the reverse. (This is not meant to state that B/A and B/S are analogous to green beans and ice cream, don't be silly. Personally see both as ice cream.) For instance, if you present an hour long documentary about the poor and how bad their health care is to someone who does not want national health care reform, they are likely to flip to Wheel of Fortune, if you on the other hand, have place small ten minute add spots in between favorite tv programs, have the news media investigate it and do a spot, and maybe introduce it in the plot of a tv show - then you are more likely to persuade.
The other thing about persuasion - is the tone of it, also how you back up your facts. You are not going to change my mind regarding B/A or the character of Angel by degrading B/S or Spike. All you will accomplish is make me hate B/A, despise Angel, and lose all interest. Negative political advertising has seen the same backlash. But it also works occassionally, some people state that Bush Sr. owed his election to Willie Norton, a convict that was furloughed by Dukakis and ended up raping and murdering a woman in Maryland. Dukakis tried to fight this by citing statistics and factual data that Bush had furloughed just as many convicts as head, all governors do. It's standard. But Bush appealed to the emotions with his ad, pushed people's buttons, while Dukakis appealed to intellect. The arguements I've heard professing B/A to be the cat's pajamas inadverently do the opposite of the intent, they piss me off. The arguments professing Angel to be interesting equally piss me off. I oddly enough liked the character and the actor playing him far more when I didn't know anyone else who did. What bit of information is the proponent using that is pissing me off or pushing my buttons? Causing me to turn a death ear? I think a combo of things - the biggest ones being: Angel was adored by his peers, he was an accomplished artist, he deserved Buffy, he was the "chosen" one, he was successful and the most evil.
What persuades one person to like something could very well turn another off. But social influences also play a role. If the people you like and admire like one coupling over another, you might be persuaded towards their viewpoint. Attractiveness. If people you can't abide prefer something, you may disregard their opinion out of hand. In another study, pairs of women were given a topic to discuss. Before each presented their case to their friend. They were told that their friend either strongly agreed or disagreed with them, this influenced how they presented their case. OF the people told that their friend strongly disagreed, about 75% changed their case to fit their friends point of view. (We don't like to be in conflict with our friends, so will often tailor our views to fit theirs?) Another factor at play, if the opinion being professed disagrees with an attitude that is deeply imbedded in you - say for instance you hate frat parties, had a bad experience with certain type of guy in school, read poetry (which was soundly criticized) and struggled in high school and college academically. While say, someone who is a mere acquaintance, who had what you'd call an easy ride in school, barely had to study, everything came easily for, was a member of a frat -etc, comes online and professes through their examination of a character how people who wrote "bad" poetry and weren't popular and couldn't get straight A's are losers. They may not intend to be saying this - but their examination may be interpreted that way sublimally in their defense of say Angel over Spike. How would you reacte? Probably with an intense dislike for Angel, a character you may have previously enjoyed, and an increased interest in Spike. That's what some social psychologist would no doubt site as a personality or developmental factor - the factor that is not addressed by social psychology.
The problem with human thinking, and something I keep thinking we need to keep in mind while interacting with one another, is it is not always logical. It does not always follow a clear syllogism.
What may seem like a persuasive argument from one perspective could be the opposite depending on the audience you are attempting to persuade. Persuasion has a lot to do with how receptive the audience is to the argument.
Juries are a perfect example. In NYC they create hostile juries merely through how juries are selected. You wait anywhere from half a day to three days in an overcrowded room, unable to do work, waiting for your name to be called. Once it is, you are put in another small room and asked a bunch of personal questions in front of strangers. Then if chosen, forced to sit in an uncomfortable court room listening to lawyers present a case for hours on end. Needless to say juries are not made up of people who are receptive. They aren't comfortable.
They aren't happy. They are pissed. Whoever speaks the least, makes them the happiest, will most likely win the day. The OJ Simpson case is a perfect example. Cochran did wonders with a memorable and rhyming phrase that stuck in the jury's head like glue :"Glove doesn't fit acquit". Logically it's possible to wear tight fitting gloves to comit murder also blood and other chemicals can shrink them. But all they remember is the phrase. (I'm not saying OJ was guilty, just using an example cited by Aronson.) We remember what is most recent, we are receptive to what is presented to us in a comforting manner, and does not conflict with prior attitudes.
If I remove myself from the online fandom, I like Angel fine and Boreanze is a serviceable actor who I don't mind watching, even enjoyable, but if I read the fandom, I can't abide the character or actor. I reject both vehemently. Some of the reasons may be due to social influences, others...ah, not so much. But social interaction definitely plays a part in my views and those of the people around me. More I think than we know or are willing to acknowledge.
ETA 2022: I just re-read the comments to this - and they are insane. We did take ourselves a touch too seriously back then, didn't we?
Social Psychology continues to fascinate. Been reading The Social Animal by Elliot Aronson, Ninth Edition for class. Clarified a few things.
One there is a difference between having an opinion and an attitude about something. Opinions can be easily changed, attitudes however are incredibly difficult to change. An opinion is what a person believes to be factually true - ie. New York is hot in the summer and there are approximately 12 million people lieving in NYC.
Opinions are primarily cognitive - they take place in our heads rather than our hearts. They can also be changed by good clear evidence to the contrary.
An attitude on the other hand is an opinion that contains an evaluative and emotional component. These aren't necessarly logical and can be influenced by numerous variables. ie. Our opinions about the characters and relationships on the TV show Buffy The Vampire Slayer or in regards to Spike and Angel are "attitudes" not opinions.
I was thinking about this while reading the chapter on mass communication, propaganda and persuasion and realized something interesting. Before I came online in 2002, I enjoyed the character of Angel, but had grown tired of the series due largely to the baby storyline. People online persuaded me to give the series another chance and I did, finding myself intrigued by the characters Wes, Lilah, Angel and Connor. As time wore on however, my interactions with others online caused an attitude adjustment, after a period of time I found myself beginning to dislike the character of Angel and oddly enough the actor portraying him. I liked the character fine if I was not interacting with any of the fans and if I did not discuss him. But whenever I read anyone's post or any fan's interest in the character or a fanfic centered on the character - I found I despised the character and had a completely negative attitude. Not necessarily logical so much as a gut reaction. According to studies conducted by social psychologists we can be persuaded to dislike or like something based on the "attractiveness" of the person doing the persuading or commonality of interest with that person. For instance, in one study, participants were told the Neo-Nazis favored a certain trival item - people found themselves rejecting that item because Neo-Nazis favored it. This tends to work with more trivial items that don't require a great deal of thought, although it can work with more important ideas as well. Is it possible that my opinion of a television character was influenced by my interactions with people who loved that character?
The answer a qualified, yes. I qualify that answer because there's another component that should be addressed - how much was do to the individual poster's personality and how much of my reaction was due to how they argued their points or the "nature" or "reasons" stated? You could argue about 50/50 or 60/40, but actually
it's more complicated. For instance, at a recent gathering of BTVS/ATS fans, the majority of the people at the gathering were Angel fans and preferred the B/A relationship to the B/S one, one of the people showed me a series of vids she had created of the show. I liked the person showing the vids. I also liked the other person who joined us to watch them. One of the people - S, the other spectator, stated a strong preference for the B/A relationship, while L declared herself to be neutral. Her opinion was B/S was all about fighting and B/A was all about kissing. S agreed stating how she much preferred to watch B/A and even oohed and awed over my shoulder as the vid was being shown. After watching the two vids, I had an interesting emotional reaction - I had no desire to see an episode of the early seasons of BTVS, felt an intense dislike for the B/A relationship, and was bored watching the vids on the screen, although I politely nodded and suppressed these feelings. The vid did the opposite from what the maker intended, instead of reminding me of what was good and romantic about the characters and instilling a love of them or interest in the series, it made me wonder why I'd bothered with it and what a load of romantic sappy crap. The first vid, B/S, where the vid maker kept telling me that this relationship was all about fighting and clearly a train wreck, shown prior, made me feel quilty for being turned on. And annoyed. Same experience online - my reaction often had more to do with how and what the person was saying than who they were, since obviously you have no clue on most of these boards - people tend to be pretty anynomous - it's how the phrase their opinions that influence or persuade.
Persuasion notes Aronson, while discussing political issues such as health care reform not tv characters, is predicated on how you approach the audience and when. In several studies they determined that people tended to ignore or deny something if it was forced upon them. If someone says - this is "good" for you and this is "bad" for you - a la Mom and Dad telling you to eat green beans instead of ice cream, you are more likely to ignore them and do the reverse. (This is not meant to state that B/A and B/S are analogous to green beans and ice cream, don't be silly. Personally see both as ice cream.) For instance, if you present an hour long documentary about the poor and how bad their health care is to someone who does not want national health care reform, they are likely to flip to Wheel of Fortune, if you on the other hand, have place small ten minute add spots in between favorite tv programs, have the news media investigate it and do a spot, and maybe introduce it in the plot of a tv show - then you are more likely to persuade.
The other thing about persuasion - is the tone of it, also how you back up your facts. You are not going to change my mind regarding B/A or the character of Angel by degrading B/S or Spike. All you will accomplish is make me hate B/A, despise Angel, and lose all interest. Negative political advertising has seen the same backlash. But it also works occassionally, some people state that Bush Sr. owed his election to Willie Norton, a convict that was furloughed by Dukakis and ended up raping and murdering a woman in Maryland. Dukakis tried to fight this by citing statistics and factual data that Bush had furloughed just as many convicts as head, all governors do. It's standard. But Bush appealed to the emotions with his ad, pushed people's buttons, while Dukakis appealed to intellect. The arguements I've heard professing B/A to be the cat's pajamas inadverently do the opposite of the intent, they piss me off. The arguments professing Angel to be interesting equally piss me off. I oddly enough liked the character and the actor playing him far more when I didn't know anyone else who did. What bit of information is the proponent using that is pissing me off or pushing my buttons? Causing me to turn a death ear? I think a combo of things - the biggest ones being: Angel was adored by his peers, he was an accomplished artist, he deserved Buffy, he was the "chosen" one, he was successful and the most evil.
What persuades one person to like something could very well turn another off. But social influences also play a role. If the people you like and admire like one coupling over another, you might be persuaded towards their viewpoint. Attractiveness. If people you can't abide prefer something, you may disregard their opinion out of hand. In another study, pairs of women were given a topic to discuss. Before each presented their case to their friend. They were told that their friend either strongly agreed or disagreed with them, this influenced how they presented their case. OF the people told that their friend strongly disagreed, about 75% changed their case to fit their friends point of view. (We don't like to be in conflict with our friends, so will often tailor our views to fit theirs?) Another factor at play, if the opinion being professed disagrees with an attitude that is deeply imbedded in you - say for instance you hate frat parties, had a bad experience with certain type of guy in school, read poetry (which was soundly criticized) and struggled in high school and college academically. While say, someone who is a mere acquaintance, who had what you'd call an easy ride in school, barely had to study, everything came easily for, was a member of a frat -etc, comes online and professes through their examination of a character how people who wrote "bad" poetry and weren't popular and couldn't get straight A's are losers. They may not intend to be saying this - but their examination may be interpreted that way sublimally in their defense of say Angel over Spike. How would you reacte? Probably with an intense dislike for Angel, a character you may have previously enjoyed, and an increased interest in Spike. That's what some social psychologist would no doubt site as a personality or developmental factor - the factor that is not addressed by social psychology.
The problem with human thinking, and something I keep thinking we need to keep in mind while interacting with one another, is it is not always logical. It does not always follow a clear syllogism.
What may seem like a persuasive argument from one perspective could be the opposite depending on the audience you are attempting to persuade. Persuasion has a lot to do with how receptive the audience is to the argument.
Juries are a perfect example. In NYC they create hostile juries merely through how juries are selected. You wait anywhere from half a day to three days in an overcrowded room, unable to do work, waiting for your name to be called. Once it is, you are put in another small room and asked a bunch of personal questions in front of strangers. Then if chosen, forced to sit in an uncomfortable court room listening to lawyers present a case for hours on end. Needless to say juries are not made up of people who are receptive. They aren't comfortable.
They aren't happy. They are pissed. Whoever speaks the least, makes them the happiest, will most likely win the day. The OJ Simpson case is a perfect example. Cochran did wonders with a memorable and rhyming phrase that stuck in the jury's head like glue :"Glove doesn't fit acquit". Logically it's possible to wear tight fitting gloves to comit murder also blood and other chemicals can shrink them. But all they remember is the phrase. (I'm not saying OJ was guilty, just using an example cited by Aronson.) We remember what is most recent, we are receptive to what is presented to us in a comforting manner, and does not conflict with prior attitudes.
If I remove myself from the online fandom, I like Angel fine and Boreanze is a serviceable actor who I don't mind watching, even enjoyable, but if I read the fandom, I can't abide the character or actor. I reject both vehemently. Some of the reasons may be due to social influences, others...ah, not so much. But social interaction definitely plays a part in my views and those of the people around me. More I think than we know or are willing to acknowledge.
ETA 2022: I just re-read the comments to this - and they are insane. We did take ourselves a touch too seriously back then, didn't we?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-18 06:37 pm (UTC)Somewhere on a friends pinboard was a list of famous men and women. The members of that household (and me) drew up a list of all the people we'd want. The rules were: you couldn't have someone other people had already picked. That list was funny because you fought over people or you said: "omg, you like him/her?". it was also a snapshot of changing tastes. For, on my list is James Masters, and no David Boreanaz.
Yes, for a brief two week period when I happened to append his name to that list, I fancied JM. My friend still laughs at me about it (she's not involved in fandom, she doesn't think he's attractive).
There is one major reason for why I stopped and couldn't watch him again until he turned up in Angel S5. Why I ran away from full blow Spuffy (yes, I was totally rooting for them at the end of S5). The reason is outlined above.
I never found Angel the character or DB in any way attractive until midway through Season one of AtS and something clicked. Then i had to go and re-watch Buffy all over again;
to clarify
Date: 2005-09-18 06:38 pm (UTC)Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-18 07:31 pm (UTC)I had a similar personal reaction to the character of Principal Wood, a character I identified with a horrible personal experience, one I still suffer a type of post-traumatic stress from. I projected my experience onto the character. Illogical. Since the person who did this to me bears no physical resemblance to Wood.
In many ways your experience with Spike is more similar to mine with Wood.
What's interesting and ironic is when we both tuned into LMPTM, we hated the opposite character. I wanted Wood to be killed with an emotional vengeance, because he reminded me of my old boss, while you understandably wanted Spike to be. It's impossible for me to show you why I felt the way I did about Wood, I'd have to put you in the situation - because watching a film wouldn't work, I don't think. While I can completely see how you felt the way you did. Which is one of the difficulties of interaction and understanding one another. Some experiences are more emotionally appreciated than others. Here's where social psychology plays a role - it is socially acceptable to hate Spike in LMPTM, after all he killed Robin Wood's mom as a vampire and showed no remorse. That is a socially acceptable response. It is not socially acceptable to dislike Wood in LMPTM or like Spike, because Wood is the injured party and society dictates that he should get retribution and Spike should be punished. (I'm not saying anything is wrong with that, please don't misunderstand). But your view and others on the ATPO board after LMTP were socially acceptable and exclusive of the other view. The other view was deviant and wrong.
So the question is, why did so many of us reacte negatively to the socially acceptable view? I think the reason is a simple one, because of the way the socially acceptable view was presented to us - sort of like, I'm good, you're bad - sort of way. It caused anger. Defensiveness.
Emotion. You have to hate Spike and like Angel, because Spike killed Robin's mom and showed no remorse. If you don't feel the same way, you are an evil person or a person who doesn't understand. And if you dislike Robin, then you are racist. It made me so angry. It still does. (I'm not saying you presented that view, but others online certainly did.) Demonstrative of how social influences can persuade the opposite of what is intended. I no longer watch either series and won't read any fanfic on it. The obsession is gone. But what fascinates me is the anger at some of the interaction, that had less to do with the show and more to do with the personalities online remains.
I think when stating opinions, it's difficult not to, and I hold myself accountable, not to condemn the opposing one to bolster our own.
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-18 07:32 pm (UTC)Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-18 08:07 pm (UTC)Re LMPTM - when I first heard about the scenario, on the Yahoo spoiler group, I actually posted that Wood was wrong. Revenge is wrong. Veangence is wrong. To want to kill someone, is just wrong. It's a supreme arrogance (and it's evil) to think that one could dictate whether another person lives or dies.
When the first person posted on AtPO that clearly Nikki didn't love her son because what mother would let her children live near danger, I again defended the ep, and Nikki saying, that isn't what is depicted.
I then realised, when I actually watched the show, what was actually going on, and I was horrified. It's not a case that Wood was defeated in an ethical way, he was defeated through violence. A humiliating, sneering, taunting violence. If they had shown that ep with Wood beating down spike until he's pulp, and then walking away, and morally condoning him, I would have been similarly horrified.
As always, whether the character is Spike, or Wood, or my firm favourites, Buffy and Angel, I tend to shy away from autocratic celebrations of violence for its own sake. I don't like ruthlessness as some moral necessity. I can see how Wesley or Lilah is ruthless and appreciate their characters, because we are meant to see them as flawed and unsafe. When characters on their way to glory/hero-dom(Buffy, Angel, Spike) crush other people underfoot? gah!
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-18 11:24 pm (UTC)Statistically there are more violent deaths seen on TV than in actuality.
And the tv shows you've enjoyed do glorify violence. Buffy's actions in Seasons 1-5 were violent. She did not win the day by brains but with fists. She killed. Same with Angel in his own series, and even Cordelia in Angel. I'm not sure there is a single character on that series that did not succeed through violence.
I do not know if that is a reflection of our society or a reflection of the writers. I think it is a societal influence. Recently read the graphic novel Black Orchid, which had an interesting fan response, fans were upset that there wasn't a violent resolution.
Rarely do you see a show coming out against violence, not condoning it.
BTVS and ATS definitely condoned violence as did Firefly. Whether that was what the writers intended, I'm not certain. But I'd have to say that in LMPTM - none of the characters were opposed to beating someone to a pulp. What's disturbing about BTVS is that is true of the episodes in every season. Can you think of one season that did not end with a violent result or the characters beating the pulp out of someone? Can you think of many episodes that didn't do the same thing? There are a few here and there: The Body (wait, no, she slays a vampire in that episode, violently). So no there isn't one.
Seven Samurai
Date: 2005-09-19 12:24 am (UTC)I think the context, and the framing of an act is all important. I don't think that Seeing Red, for example, glorified attempted rape, it just depicted it. Until Season 5, (when I first came into fandom) I thought BtVS had a pretty troubling attitute towards violence, but I was willing to suspend my sensibilities becuase I figured, well, it's cartoon violence for a cartoon show - nothing there. It's when I saw Season 5 that i started reassessing what I'd seen before, which was Buffy's admission that violence and the way of life that she had to lead was changing her. I would actually, quite strongly argue that there are many Buffy episodes that contain violence that do not in any way condone violence. It is used as a metaphor, while simultaneously acknowledging its reality within its own narrative as being meaningful violence at the basic level (i.e, Buffy does indeed slay vampires - but the meaning of it within the narrative is shifting. This is very well illustrated by the killing of the one lone vamp in The Body. I saw in it two things: the meta-comment that BtVS has to have an intrusion of "reality" (in Buffy terms) into the episode. It's very clever - to show the normal act of a death as being so unreal and grotesque that the killing of a vampire has the feel of a gritty reality - of a corporeality, of solidity. Secondly, it highlighted to me what vampires really do stand for - death, time, disruption.
Re: Seven Samurai
Date: 2005-09-20 12:02 am (UTC)At work today, it was a mindless day (which is nice for a change, last week was incredibly stressful), I rolled around your argument on LMPTM. When I saw LMPTM for the first time - my immediate reaction was you'd hate it. And I dreaded going online, because I saw exactly what you did.
I also saw the opposite. It's a weird episode, because it is mainly written in Robin Wood's point of view from start to finish. But like many BTVS and ATS episodes does not stay consistently there. I think they tried to do too much in that episode and may have been better served splitting it up a bit. Because the switches in pov are a bit jarring and confusing emotionally. But what the hey, that's television.
At any rate - I'm not sure that Spike's actions are condoned. Nor is Spike shown in a positive light. No one in that episode is, including our heroine, who throughout the season is shown falling slowly towards rock bottom. Or at least I think that was the writer's intent. The previous week she rejects power knowing what lies ahead, she closes herself off, only allowing one person in - Spike. Giles worrying about this attempts to put a stop to it. That's one interpretation - Giles. Then we have Buffy's pov. Then Spike's. Then Wood's. How you feel in the episode is which pov you take and it's impossible for anyone to be in all four.
Too jarring. Violence isn't condoned here. Wood beats Spike to a pulp, burns him, punchs him, while he lies defenseless on the floor moaning in demon face reliving his past trauma, then the tables turn and Spike defends himself against Wood, beats him down and then when Wood lies broken, pulls out Spike's best weapon words. He punchs the man with words.
Just as Wood initially punched Spike with words. Neither man comes out well - both are monsters and both blame their mothers for it. Enter Buffy who states that it's not their mother's fault, they can choose to be different. The mother was just doing her job, what Wood and Spike decide to become is their business. And she does not need to be saved by them and certainly not through violence. That's the reading of the episode I see now. It was not however the one I saw then.
It's a weird episode, but I'm not sure it condones violence any more than Villians, Graduation Day, Who Are You, Chosen, or Selfless necessarily did. I'm also not sure how much of my own views colored what I saw.
Remember how a couple of posters tore apart my theories on the episode after I first saw it? I can't in all honesty right now say they were wrong. It was an odd episode.
Re: Seven Samurai
Date: 2005-09-20 11:59 pm (UTC)I don't think that the writers thought they were condoning violence. I don't think they aimed to decisively come down on either side. Like a lot of season 7, I felt LMPTM was thematically incoherent. But when you don't reach the ends, all you have left are the means, and the means of LMPTM (and, even more so, Get It Done) I found really off putting. There are lots of BTVS eps that contain elements that may be shocking or troubling. But they are always sited in some context that either allowed you to argue away the disturbing elements or transformed the disquiet into something really very thought provoking and good.
I may be fooling myself here in that there were lots of fans who had enormous problems with eps that I felt were indeed disturbing but explainable. Maybe LMPTM was my Waterloo, but other people reached theirs long before. In that sense, this is where attitudes, histories, individual engagements with the show starts showing up. Of course I think that our personal histories, emotions and experiences play a part in how we read the show. But I sometimes think that argument can be used thusly:
"My normal past and experience and emotional wellness lets me read the show in one way, and your unbalanced, odd, unwell personality/past reads the show in a completely different way!"
The most amusing example of the above was when an unnamed person started going on about how the show shouldn't have to cater for people who'd gotten tied to trees as a child and abandoned by the step-father. That isn't the story Joss is telling. Only you know, that was exactly the story he was telling.
Which leads me to the conclusion that perhaps our past and our experiences and our attitudes dictates both our world views, but also the manner of our interaction with others. And that this interaction isn't cut and dried but an organic living process rather than a one off event. BtVS the show is always watched by one individual, but when it's dicussed and shared with other people - that's how we get AtPO. That's how we get each other, our pasts, our experiences, our attitudes, our worlds. I think this coils in neatly with some of the more positive messages of BtVS S7, and in its better moments, when the experience of being a "fan" becomes something more than the tv show in question.
Re: Seven Samurai
Date: 2005-09-21 12:45 pm (UTC)Heh. This correlates neatly with a statement that my professor made last night in class regarding how we evaluate others behavior. We tend to be more lenient with ourselves, while more judgemental of someone else.
ie. I was late today because my alarm didn't go off but they were late because they are irresponsible. Or I didn't help that person due to the situation, there were huge guys threatening her and I would have been hurt greatly, while they didn't do it because of how they were brought up. (Not the best examples).
This example can be extended to how we reacted to one anothers views on BTVS and ATS. At times it felt like people were watching completely different television shows. And we at times were judgmental, I think, of one another's perspective because it did not validate or correlate with our own.
I may be fooling myself here in that there were lots of fans who had enormous problems with eps that I felt were indeed disturbing but explainable. Maybe LMPTM was my Waterloo, but other people reached theirs long before. In that sense, this is where attitudes, histories, individual engagements with the show starts showing up. Of course I think that our personal histories, emotions and experiences play a part in how we read the show.
Very true. For some viewers the Waterloo episode was Dead Things and Buffy beating Spike to a pulp. They felt that the show condoned it because of the next few episodes. (Possibly the same reason many people felt Spike's actions at the end of LMPTM were condoned due to what happened in the next few episodes.) I remember writing an essay about it at the time regarding domestic violence. Another Waterloo moment was Seeing Red - not the sexual assault, but the killing of Tara and Willow becoming DarkWillow. For them that was possibly the most offensive thing the show ever did. They saw the Lesbian Cliche. Granted, you and I could argue it's not there, but I can't see that the people who saw it were entirely wrong either nor can I explain away their point of view by stating they are nuts or projecting, any more than I would be right to explain away the perspective that Angel in S2 and S1 of BTVs, actually in the whole series, had a disturbing Lolitish aspect. For some, he even appeared to be a bit of a pedophile - interested in young girls whom he could control. It may not have been my perspective, but was it completely invalid? (Shrugs)
And I'm not sure anyone has a normal past so to speak. But I find it interesting how we judge our own pasts and others based on incomplete information. Because the truth is - no matter how much someone tells us about themselves, there is always bits and pieces we don't know. I've been told that it is easy to envy or judge someone else from afar, but when you're literally in their skin it's quite another matter. There are days I was such a thing were possible, to be inside someone else's skin, but most of the time - I'm glad it's not. The closest we can get I suppose is through watching shows such as BTVS and discussing them and being open to views that may not agree with our own.
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-18 11:34 pm (UTC)Deviant = Faith. The advertising and marketing push was always Angel.
Look at the packaging on S7 DVD, it shows B/A in a liplock with Spike as an outsider. He's a popular character sure, but not an acceptable one.
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-19 12:37 am (UTC)I'm not convinced that I love Faith because she's deviant, or that I like Angel becuase he's normal and an establishment type. I think Angel at best is kind of creepy and screwed up. I never go near the novelisations for the shows and have minimal exposure to marketing for them - it really wasn't a high profile thing in the UK. At all. I have no idea what the status quo was. On the internet, depending on which particular enclave I was reading, it tended to go one way or another. Does it actually really matter? The last season of Angel proved to me that my adherence or loyalty to any character was completely contingent on their storylines.
That eventually ends with all major fan groupings accusing you of hating Spike, Angel and Buffy. BUt since they tend to hate the other camps to, you end up in a no-mans-land that makes a fandom that positively insists you run with a particular herd unbearable
Perhaps I'm just allergic to Heroes with a Capital, self proclaimed H, not behaving in a particularly humane, thoughtful or compassionate way. perhaps that's more important to me than belonging to any particular camp of a tv fandom.
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-19 03:07 am (UTC)What I'm trying to point out is there is a social influence at work here, or at least I perceive one to be. Somewhat new at this and as any good social psychologist would tell me, you can't make generalizations or assumptions in an uncontrolled test. But there are a few interesting things to note here, removing our personal reactions out of the quotation for the moment, let's look at how people related to it online. Because to be honest I never really saw Spike or Angel as heroes per se, but as tragic heroes or anti-heroes. Right with you on that score.
What just occurred to me, when I thought about it, is the accepted status quo on all the public posting boards was B/A or Angel. The people who ran these boards or the board moderators and owners were professed B/A and or Angel fans and did not like Spike. They tolerated the character and the characters fans, but when push came to shove , being human, came out in favor of their favorite. Their websites were B/A or Angel specific. ATpO, BC&S, Angel's Soul Board, Television Without Pity. AngelX was a B/A and Angel fan. Masq same way. They liked Evil Spike but did not like him when he was paired with Buffy. Strada and Ace despised Spike on TWOP and of the three boards mentioned were the least tolerant of Spike fans and deleted and often banned fans from their boards, they did the same with Connor fans by the way. These were the known public boards. On ATPO two trolls or people with trollish behavior popped up in 2003, one was a B/A fan and pro Angel and hated Spike, one was a Spike fan, B/S and hated Angel. Both were obnoxious, both used more than one name. The B/S fan was the younger of the two. Of the two, the B/S fan was booted off the board. The B/A fan was accepted into chat, and even went to more than one meet. Personally I found both personalities equally annoying and impossible to deal with or talk to online - I saw no difference between them except one was pro Angel and one was pro Spike.
Further evidence, when BC&S, Angel's Soul, and ATPO decided to do collaborative fiction for fics after the series ended, all three without exception focused primarily on the character of Angel, the character Spike was relegated to supporting or rarely addressed. The reason stated? That's canon.
The online interaction I've seen on the public boards and in the established sites is without exception pro Angel, and anti-Spike. It's fascinating from a social psychology perspective why this is so. Yes you have interlopers and fans on those sites posting on Spike, but they are not running the boards and not in control.
David Boreanze is not a trained actor and is pretty. He was not by any means the best actor in either series, yet the marketing and posters have sold him to the audience. He was hired as a pretty boy. And he does have enough talent to get by. Marster by comparison was theater trained, not a pretty boy but can be made to look pretty, and was hired purely for talent not just looks according to writer and director commentary.
But the status quoe picked Boreanze. Why?
People who did not go along with the trend or booted it, created peripheral sites in response such as Marsters Mobsters, Blood Awful Poet Society, Big Bad Board, Tea At the Ford. Each meeting the needs of the crowd that did not go with the established trend, which was established back in S1. Most of the people who created these boards came to the series in later years, around the same time you did or S4, most were much older. Although there were board masters of the earlier boards who are also older, but most of the well-known established boards were created in the 1997/1998.
Not sure this made much sense, just late night thoughts wanted to jot down so could go to sleep...and go back to work analyzing contracts, sigh, much more fun analyzing televion fan behavior. Even though I'm probably more knowledgable and far better at analyzing the contracts, plus much safer - less likely to piss people off. ;-)
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-19 07:47 am (UTC)Secondly, does one actually want mod/mainstream approval? I can't think of the heterosexual pairings I ever squee about on my lj. I don't like how tv does romance. I liked Spuffy before they actually started showing it. I didn't particularly like B/A. I just liked BtVS, and canonical BtVS for the first five years. Which meant, being interested in B/A as a metaphorical element of the show. No Hotness involved.
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-19 05:22 pm (UTC)I wonder if shippyness is a bit of a smokescreen, because the most vehement reactions to ships that I've seen end up having less to do with romance or romantic parings and more to do with reinforcing the world-view and life choices and needs of the fan. Hence the personal nature of the shipping defenses--because it *is* personal to them. You can realize and acknowledge that Wood irks you for personal reasons, so you aren't emotionally invested in seeing him succeed or fail, and when the writers' choices don't echo yours you shrug and move on. (I wanted to see him eaten for reasons of continuity, though. Where's the follow-through, ME?? ;)) You, Rahael, know why Spike offends you, but the situation has more weight with you for moral reasons. Maybe none of us have any overriding shipping preferences because none of us unconciously identifies with the characters.
When Angel ended I thought, but the story isn't over yet! Angel hasn't learned his lesson, he hasn't completed his journey. He still has to reach an existential point where he stops trying to control others and expunge his feelings of guilt, thereby ruining his life! Because it's my existentialism that I want to see verified, since I'm probably never going to be able to watch another show written by someone I think is in synch with my own ideas. And it's just so fascinating to see how people (fictional, but well-written) deal with their problems and past, how their problems affect the way they relate to others and themselves. How do we find the strength to endure? How do we compensate for our shortcomings, hide our neediness, mess up because we don't accept who we are? I love the characters for their flaws, and I love the way the writers showed that for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Nothing is chance, while at the same time everything is chance, because even when we understand why we do what we do, life throws us another curveball and we have to figure out everything all over again.
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-19 08:22 pm (UTC)That said, there are additional bits of information that lend weight to my theory that the ATPO board specifically in the years 2003-2005 had a social biasis towards one specific character - Angel and against Spike.
1. Some Posters felt the need to set up a corollary board in 2003 called Angel after Spike. Not many people were on that board.
2. Posts regarding fanfic on Spike or Spikecentric fic are ignored. And disappear unaddressed.
So there is a social biasis, if slight. The question is to what degree was this biasis influenced by the show itself and to what degree by the consensus?
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-19 08:50 pm (UTC)Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-19 11:40 pm (UTC)It sort of crumpled around 2004, when the viewers who were raging about Spike joining Angel realized they were being incredibly silly and Spike was not going to take over the series after all. Yes, there was a point in time there in which I wondered if we all weren't posting from our locked attics. LOL!
But you are right for pointing out a factor that didn't occur to me until today, about 50% of the Spike fans, possibly more, who'd been into BTVS did not come over to Angel. They tried the first four episodes and gave up. So - of course ATPO showed a definite Angel bias, it also decreased in the number of posts considerably. Buffy Cross & Stake rarely discussed Angel and also dropped in attendance. Angel's Soul increased with the Spike add ons for about five months, then decreased.
So, yep that's a major hole in my argument.
Thanks. Had been tempted to use my experiences in fandom in one of the papers for class, but playing around with it here makes it clear I was right not to try it. Not workable. Too complex.
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-21 12:09 am (UTC)Also rememmber that as far as AtPO and Angel After Spike was concerned, there were storms bigger than Spuffy & B/A at work (though there was a correlation between the two).
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-21 02:40 pm (UTC)Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-21 04:16 pm (UTC)Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-20 02:51 am (UTC)Well, I might be biased, since quite a bit of my fic attempts have been Spikeish in nature, but here goes.
It's been my experience that any fanfic post pretty much passes without a comment. ATPo is not a fanfic kind of place, really. I remember that you, actually, commented something about my OC in "Menage a Deux" not being a Mary Sue. Which I can't remember if I ever told you how much I appreciated getting a feedback comment on the board, so, thank you!
Now that I'm posting my own stuff more on LJ and/or Lyric Wheel, I'm getting a titch more feedback. However, I guess that legions of adoring fans clamouring for more more MORE is probably not something that I could deal with anyways.
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-20 12:41 pm (UTC)With the exception of the ATPO Season 6 Serial, you're right. If it's a board sponsored fic - it will get comments, quite a few actually, if not, rarely any. This is not exclusive to ATPO by the way. Other boards have harsh rules regarding posting of fanfic recs - at Buffy Cross and Stake, you could only post recs on the non-spoiler board and only if you had reached "regular" status which was awarded by the board moderator. Later spoiler boards allowed fanfic but again only if board sponsored and permission was requested first. TWOP also has strict rules. You can only rec fic that is not your own or if it is, only if you have made regular status. Same thing goes for whedonesque - no linking to your own essays or fic, if you get an essay linked to on that board - it's because someone else found it and linked.
(Which was why in fandom making whedonesque or being rec'ed on whedonesque was a honor - since someone else had to do it and while in some cases you could say it was a friend of the writers, I never knew of an instance. Whedonesque also doesn't allow much on fanfic rec's and tends to only allow essays or reviews or news bits.)
So, you're right, my argument has a hole in it. On the other hand it is interesting that fic that is board sponsored gets responses and is considered "good" while fic outside the board doesn't get rec'ed or acknowledged. (To be honest, I don't like board sponsored fic find it dull and status quo, following strict rules of canon, the riskier stuff was unsponsored partly because it was done outside of a sizable "group" and not under strict guidelines. Have same problems with collaborative fics...so perhaps just don't like reading collaborations? (shrug) But since I don't read fanfic anymore, it's not really an issue.)
Re: to clarify
Date: 2005-09-19 09:37 pm (UTC)Firstly, the fandom sprawls out way beyond one person's ability to get the measure of it. A lot of fandom happens secretly. A lot happens in chat rooms, journals (which may or many not be friendslocked). There is sitll a great measure of fandom that doesn't interact with other fans(as I used to be, and am now again - the silent, solitary consumers of a fandom).
I also think that people do not respond predictably to any "text". As is quite obvious, no matter how bald or absolute the statement, a million interpretations are launched. There *is* space in BtVS for multiple interpretations. Some are probably more correct than others. We all slot in our hierarchies of probablities differently.
I wrote a lot more, but I think it would be wisest to stop here. Everything you think about my view on Spike? There's an Angel fan who thinks the same about my views on Angel and who takes similar offence. Ditto a lot of Buffy fans. Let's not get started on the big Wesley-Gunn-Fred controversy! Or anywhere near Connor. I can't express how much relief I feel at having been released from my excitement/interest in the show and the characters. Fandom, Ugh. I always felt as if I was one step away from being locked in the attic.
Agree
Date: 2005-09-19 11:30 pm (UTC)And coming up with the same confusing muddle I just did. Heh..
So I tend to agree. [Particularly with your last paragraph. Ditto on the last sentence of your post! I wondered much the same about myself for a few years there. So happy to past all that.] Also, you're right - attempting to analyze fandom may be akin to capturing and analyzing lighting in a bottle, impossible. I think there's an obsessiven nature to being a fan that is worth studying, but difficult due to unknown variables.
Was thinking it over today and saw quite a few holes in my own arguments, while I could defend a position that there was a definite Angel bias on TWOP and ATPO in later years, I'd have to step back and admit that a) BTVS had ended and b) that the number of people frequenting both boards had scattered a bit. Also Buffy Cross and Stake, a spoiler board which had the highest number of posters of the three boards, averaging 600 or more a day at the height of it's popularity, showed a significant bias or leaning towards Spike (partly because Angel had his own show and there was the sister board, Angel's Soul for Angel fans, which had less posters interestingly enough. Perhaps a better argument would be that much of the Spike hatred was due to the fact that these fans felt displaced on their former boards?) Feel a little sorry for the Xander fans, who probably did feel a little like deviants on the boards, especially b/x and b/r shippers.
So you are right my arguments don't work if you expand upon them. I was attempting to confine them to three boards in analysis, but even there the argument falls apart.
Have another book to read for the same class entitled: "How We Know What Isn't So: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life by Thomas Gilvovich", which pokes holes in many social psychology studies and other research. It also cautions against attempting to do what I just did. The exercise taught me that you can't determine group behavorial patterns merely through observation, you need to be aware of other types of variables - such as the situation, the personalities of the people involved, and external influences.
Thanks for your comments, helped me clarify a few things in my head couldn't have done alone.
Re: Agree
Date: 2005-09-21 12:06 am (UTC)I don't think its impossible at all, but I think there would have to be a measure of self-definition by other fans - perhaps my fannish experience and yours isn't the same, but your experience would be setting the parameters for the entire study? Things like that. similarly, as a non-shipper, with a canonical interest in the show's canonical couples with a deeper interest in the couples-who-aren't as a kind of mirror image (I rarely if ever want the show to depict the ships I actually read fic about) my fannish experience isn't probably very representative.
Re: Agree
Date: 2005-09-21 12:53 pm (UTC)Not sure this is true. There were lots of fans who did not directly "ship" onscreen relationships. (I know because half of them sent me emails asking for essays for websites featuring non-cannon ships : ie. Willow/Spike, Spike/Riley, Spike/Xander, Faith/Buffy, Buffy/Xander, Andrew/Spike, Willow/Buffy...Lilah/Spike. Giles/Anya - was huge on the BC&S board for a while. It goes on.) Also there's slash which is hardly canon or even condoned by the writers. Hence the name slash. Huge percentage of fandom actually prefers the non-canonical ships as a reaction to the shipping wars partly and possibly because they knew like I did that this being television the actual romances would never satisfy, so you might as well make up your own. There are quite a few people who shipped B/S in seasons 2-4, but did not ship them in 5-7.
So you aren't as atypical as you may think.
I tended to do both. I went with what was onscreen. I also played with reading fantasies of things that did not happen onscreen. But I doubt that was atypical either.
That's the difficulty with the analysis, determining what is the typical fan and what is the deviant, or the control/non-control.