If you were dropped in the middle of Mexico City, Buenos Aires or Bogotá and tried to find a Latin American, you would never come across a single person who described themselves as such. No matter how deep into Rio’s favelas or the most recondite parts of the Nicaraguan jungle you looked, such a creature would be more elusive than the Loch Ness monster.
Although coined by the French during their Napoleonic bid for a world empire the term has seeped, naturally, into the lexicon of the current and far more powerful global hegemon, the United States of America. Its purpose then was much the same as it is now: to homogenize a plurality and subsume separate and distinct peoples under a singular socio-political paradigm, based on etymology. Never mind that millions of the region’s inhabitants – the original ones, in fact – spoke and speak their own native languages, which are completely unrelated to the romance varieties imported from Europe.
Latin Americans, Latinos and the more recently concocted Latinx are all things, that only exist here in the house McDonald’s built; an expedient way to identify television market share, with no real social value. Second and third generation immigrants might adopt the format in public. But, behind closed doors, at family reunions and when they go back to visit grandma in the old country, nobody claims to belong to a contrived pan-lat-am diaspora. They are loyal to their own vocabularies and songs, unique to the places they come from.
The American penchant for lumping people from different backgrounds and cultures together is not new, of course. Their infamously bad grasp of geography is often on display and hardly draws any shame. On the contrary, they seem to relish it; as if not knowing where Peru is on a map is a sort of humblebrag display of domination.
Just yesterday, none other than the éminence grise of American broadcast journalism, Tom Brokaw, revealed his own cultural chauvinism when he tried to backtrack from comments he had made about Hispanics on a TV show. The comment itself calling on “Hispanics” work harder on assimilation, while reeking of MAGA-esque intolerance, was not particularly noteworthy or unexpected. It was his clumsy Twitterpology (yes, I made it up), that perfectly encapsulates my argument.
i feel terrible a part of my comments on Hispanics offended some members of that proud culture
Historians typically frame Simon Bolivar’s attempt to bring every nation of the Americas under one flag in a noble light. But, it was just another imperialist doing what imperialists do. I didn’t work then and no amount of Latin Grammy award shows will make it work now.
The “Big Bang” is a popular term for the prevailing scientific view of the origin of the universe; a secular creation story of sorts. For most people of a certain younger generation, though, it is just a funny show on T.V. “The Big Bang Theory” has been a highly successful situation comedy on CBS for all of a decade and given the characters’ backstories, ubiquitous scientific jargon and mathematical references it wouldn’t seem wrong to assume that science is the thematic basis for the show’s title. But if we take off our Einstein-colored glasses for a moment and adopt a less ‘Sheldonesque’ perspective, we might come away with a far more mundane view of the matter.
In our 21st century slang lexicon, the word “bang” occupies a special place. Crossing cultural, class and even racial barriers this verb has become a universally accepted expression for casual intercourse. The one barrier it did not cross is the one between the sexes. In the largely genderless English language, this particular example of urban cant is decidedly masculine and, to some degree, sexist.
The ‘big bang’, stripped of its scientific connotation and placed in the context of comedy and popular culture, can easily be interpreted as a euphemism for sexual debauchery. Taken just a bit further, it closely resembles a term coined by the porn industry: the gang bang. In another, though no less significant, definition of the word it can mean a loud explosion, usually from a gun or a bomb.
By breaking down the structure, elements and characters of the show, a strong case can be made that “The Big Bang Theory” show is an allegorical depiction of sexual roles in society rather than a teleplay about a group of quirky scientists. It can also be speculated that it targets a very specific and uniquely traumatized segment of the American population.
The show revolves around the lives of five characters, four males and one female. The men are all high-achieving members of the scientific community, intellectually gifted but socially awkward. The female is much the opposite; portrayed as vastly inferior to the men in mental competence, yet adept at social interactions. These are the basic character profiles upon which the show’s storylines hang; all of which center on sex.
Adding credence to this idea is the fact that producers had originally given one of the protagonists, Sheldon Cooper, the sex-fiend, incorrigible ‘horn dog’ character traits, which eventually ended up as part of the less important role of Howard Wolowitz.
Instead, the tallest cast member is made to play an asexual genius who constantly talks down and passes judgement on the social-sexual habits of his circle of friends. The brunt of his contempt is reserved for the lone female character. Penny is an aspiring actress who is otherwise portrayed as a slut and identified in a running gag as nothing more than an ape with breasts. It is between these two polarities – from the unblemished mind of a theoretical physicist to the alcohol-bruised brain of a promiscuous Midwestern girl – that the creators of The Big Bang Theory want to weave a story about sexual dynamics in our society.
Penny is literally the “girl next door”, a well-established archetype in American culture, which enshrines the permanent male fantasy of an accessible woman. She’s a “one-of-the-guys” kind of gal who’s into sports and unambiguous about her sexual desire. In other words, Penny is the anti-woman. Directly opposite her character is Leonard, who is himself an anti-man figure. He is an emotionally open, if fragile, individual who compensates for the lack of a nurturing mother by seeking solace between Penny’s legs. The girl next door, however, doesn’t want children, which is part of her appeal. She’s at arm’s length – both within reach and requiring no commitment.
The Big Bang Theory has been on T.V. for at least a third and at most half of the average viewers’ lifetimes. In 2014, 84.2 million people watched at least 6 minutes of the show; roughly 30% of the U.S. population. – source:Vulture
Writer & Editor
Big Bang Genesis
Procreation, as the ultimate purpose of ‘banging’ is an ever present element on the show through the parental relationships of the characters, who interact with their parents in important ways.
Rajesh, the Indian astrophysicist, regularly communicates with his wealthy parents via internet video chat, who always seem to be concerned with the preservation of his genetic lineage, even as his best friend, Howard, relentlessly makes him the butt of all manner of racist and bigoted jokes. The point is further reinforced by Rajesh’s sister’s doomed relationship with Leonard as a result of her parents’ interference. The dark-skinned immigrant character is firmly established as undesirable by his own impotence around women and only alcohol can help him overcome his crippling inhibitions. It is also worth noting that his parents represent the only parental couple who remain in a traditional bond of marriage.
Both Leonard’s and Sheldon’s parental situation must be considered together, since these are used as plot points to present opposing world views. In each case, the father is absent by either divorce or abandonment. It is through the mother’s differing viewpoints that the conflict between creationism and evolution is engaged and it is through the perceived status of each offspring within their respective families that it is resolved.
According to Sheldon’s mother, her son’s superior intellect is the result of forces beyond her comprehension, which she is happy to ascribe to her religious beliefs. Despite the ideological chasm between her and Sheldon, she considers him nothing less than extraordinary. Leonard’s mother, on the other hand, sees her son as an underachiever whose value as a guinea pig for her child psychology experiments superseded any sort of maternal instinct. The same dynamic is repeated in the relationship of the roommates themselves, where Sheldon considers Leonard to be of inferior intellectual stock, while Leonard begrudgingly accepts his friend’s genius. Closing this odd oedipal circle, Sheldon and Leonard find a kindred spirit in each other’s mothers.
The Freudian nightmare intensifies with Howard. Echoing Norman Bates in Hitchcock’s horror masterpiece, the scrawny space engineer still lives with his mother, who exists only as a screeching disembodied voice in his childhood home. They are constantly getting into shouting matches about trite domestic issues like an old married couple. Even though we never see her, we know she is obese and requires special attention, which her son reluctantly provides until she is literally killed off and replaced with a wife/mother figure in Bernadette who moves into the same house. As the proverbial “momma’s boy” with an unchecked libido, Howard resides in a quasi-incestuous reality.
Penny’s family history is not as developed as that of the other characters for reasons we’ll touch on below, but she also comes from a broken home with the salient difference of having been raised by her father, which sets her up for the “daddy issues” stereotype associated with easy women.
Penny, Penny, Penny
The Penny character is key to our understanding of the show’s underlying message. Among the more subtle factoids about her is that, among all the characters, she is the only one whose last name is never mentioned at any point during the show. This omission cannot be attributed to gender alone since the other two supporting female roles are given last names. In order to fathom why the lead female character would lack such a significant feature, we must delve deeper into the symbolism behind her character.
The lowest denomination of American currency is the penny. The one-cent, copper mint has developed several different connotations in society, such as stinginess, frugality and others. But, the most common association the coin has is with the concept of luck. “See a penny, pick it up. All day long you’ll have good luck” is a phrase most Americans know.
Immortalized in the hugely popular coming-of-age musical ‘Grease’, this melodious expression perpetuates the idea of the lucky penny from generation to generation in one of the few relics of oral tradition. The fortuitous nature of luck makes activities like gambling irresistible for millions of people. The fear of losing it all combined with the possibility of striking it rich has proven addictive in many cases, perhaps because it mirrors a biological imperative. Mating in human society requires a willingness to put ourselves on the line and take a chance on another human being. Penny is no ordinary character in the show, but rather a pivotal and esoteric element in a sophisticated farce, who represents the mating principle in a universe where the four male characters live to “get lucky”. She is the fertility goddess through which the reproductive probabilities of the other characters are determined.
Probability theory, a pillar of 20th century physics, is expressed in mathematical equations where probability itself is represented by the letter “P”. Penny’s name, therefore, is a parable designed for those who understand the scientific “keys” in the riddle of “The Big Bang Theory” and, as such, last names and backstories are of no importance when it comes to her character.
Across the hall from the cute, bubbly blonde is a constellation of social outcasts striving to “score”. Each of the four male characters represent one particular formula in the grand equation of perpetuating the species.
In this allegory, Sheldon Cooper is the sexually innocent fawn who is constantly flummoxed by the social rituals his clumsy friends perform in order to “score”. He lives in his own mind, protected from the uncertainties of the real world through highly regulated schedules and strictly worded, and literal, social contracts. Blissfully unaware of others’ needs, the brilliant Dr. Cooper towers above everyone else in physical stature and is also meant to tower, metaphorically, over society as presently constructed.
This androgynous, asexual and asocial specimen whose life unfolds with mathematical precision is held up as a beacon to guide the others through the labyrinth of current human society towards a ‘scientifically’ sound future where natural selection will be replaced with calculated election.
His roommate, Leonard Hofstadter, is the probing adolescent with self-esteem issues who harbors idealistic views of love and indulges in romantic escapades. He lives in “our” time, doing is best to conform to the expectations of an entrenched social order. In a sense, Leonard is like a bridge that connects yesterday to tomorrow, sacrificing himself in the process. He’s a martyr who struggles in a world that still values traditional male archetypes and gives a voice to all the nerds that ever tried to hit on the hot girl or wish they could. Leonard is a tragic figure who lives in the professional shadow of his roommate and the eternal disapproval of his mother.
Howard Wolowitz is the fully-grown geek. Never content with merely theorizing about social acceptance, he embraces his sexual exuberance throwing himself at anything that moves. Howard is Jewish – a fact deemed important enough to warrant repeated mention throughout the show – and he is the most accomplished of his peers, having conquered man’s last frontier: space. Despite his diminutive size, the smallest of the group, Howard Wolowitz emerges from under his mother’s skirt to become the victorious dork and the only one who manages to reproduce.
Rajesh Koothrappali is the perpetual third wheel from the third world, relegated by his own insecurities to the realm of platonic infatuations. His ambivalent sexuality and foreign origin underscores his role of the outsider. As an astrophysicist, he gazes on the cosmos from an impossibly large distance, which mirrors the great gap between his need for companionship and his inability to find it. He is the legacy human, ruled by his emotions and destined to contemplate the light of stars that perished long ago.
In all character dynamics, Penny (Chance) always has the upper hand with one notable exception: Sheldon. Wrapped in the guise of logic and rationality, Dr. Cooper’s behavior is actually riddled with manipulation and subterfuge directed at the viewers through his relationship with Penny. Sheldon’s role is nothing less than that of a warlock casting spells on the unsuspecting T.V. audience. His robotic demeanor and droning voice are utilized to insert repetitive command cues that underlie the show’s plot points.
Performing like an expert hypnotist, Sheldon always calls on Penny in the same rhythmically spaced knocking pattern and vocalizes her name three times. This is a neuro-linguistic programming technique designed to drill trigger words into a subject’s subconscious mind. This specific trigger is meant to activate base sexual desire every time her name is mentioned. The “Soft Kitty” lullaby is used to deepen this subliminal message. Sheldon teaches Penny to sing Soft Kitty to him in bed, which is a euphemism for masturbation.
In order to assert Sheldon’s authority, all characters are made to adhere to his quasi-legal and completely arbitrary “agreements”. The most often-quoted contract is the so-called “roommate agreement”, which he always manages to enforce despite any resistance. Sheldon is the high priest of this faux scientific universe and his word is not to be questioned.
An important element in this universe are numbers. But on the show, the number 4 makes its presence felt more than any other. We have the four male leads, of course; the apartment numbers are 4A and 4B; the show’s title has four words and in many instances, the characters are written into scenes that occur in groups of four.
The symbolism of the number 4 spans many different interpretations, but for the most part, they all merge into the concept of stability and established truth. The square represents the ‘known’ and certainty, which is something many of the show’s viewers are subconsciously seeking.
The average age of The Big Bang Theory’s viewing audience falls within the range of 18 to 35. These are, of course, the years in which many of us embark on the process of becoming who we will eventually become. But, if we consider the historical context of these particular 18 to 35 year-olds in America, we’ll find that they are especially vulnerable and more likely to seek out structure and reassurance. We are talking about the 9-11 generation, no less. The “Big Bang” is their origin story, too.
Nearly every character in The Big Bang Theory is a highly educated professional and yet they are all portrayed as infantile, dependent and socially immature people. In addition, the permanent backdrop of the comic book store, toys and games that are carefully positioned within the brightly-colored set design has a high visual appeal for young children.
The general bounce-house atmosphere, early time slot and repeated syndication virtually guaranteed that an entire generation of children and teenagers, who are now entering adulthood, have been consuming a steady diet of subliminal messaging about gender roles, sexual behavior and self-worth, presented in a pseudo-scientific packaging.
As it enters its eleventh season, The Big Bang Theory can be considered an important, if subliminal influence on the world view of youngsters who have followed the boisterous clan of nerds for a decade. Just like the show “Friends” created a cult-like following among Gen-Xers who saw themselves in the scripted lives of the six East Coast roommates, this new band of fictional West Coast buddies has been crafted to appeal specifically to the tech-savvy, code-writing youths of the new Millennium, both reaffirming and conditioning their role in society.
Scholars trace the roots of western civilization to Greece; to some honest students, a stretch of the academic imagination. Though Greek civilization did bequeath many things to the west, the direct link described by many historians is misleading at best. Greek knowledge was diffused into Europe already filtered through the ‘lens’ of other civilizations. Despite the politics of academia or the ideological directives of those who finance it, western civilization is a much newer phenomenon.
But how useful is the term ‘western civilization’ to define our current cultural paradigm?
Oswald Spengler wrote extensively about what he believed to be the a-priori demise of western civilization nearly a century ago; Neitzche, the last of the west’s great thinkers, arrived at roughly the same conclusion, offering us his tenuously constructed ubermenchen, itself a projection into a future that escaped purely western thought and a testimonial to the basic thrust of western civilization, which exalted the individual above and beyond any other value.
In a burgeoning global culture, can such a thing as ‘western’ civilization even exist? Some will rightly question whether we are, in fact, building a global culture or simply consolidating corporations across international boundaries, perpetuating the hyper-individualistic, market-based economy and ignoring expressions of true global interaction between different economic and social groups.
The market is both the motor for globalization as well as its greatest nemesis, the former a consequence of its essence, exchange, and the latter caused by the exclusive and repressive models used to actualize it. Trade in goods and services connects people on a level which should allow for the germination of richer cultural expressions, but at the same time the homogenizing tendencies of the ‘western’ or ‘individualistic’ market, i.e. the concentration of wealth and means of production in few hands, constantly subverts any possibility of open-ended cultural exchange.
Nevertheless, things have a way of evening out, and at some point a time will have to arrive when people will have to walk upon the bridges that have been built.
Civilizations are love affairs of the collective unconscious. A shape is drawn and slowly people begin to dance around it, eventually becoming the shape itself. They are inorganic entities and as such have the ability to exist indefinitely or until a new shape becomes visible over the horizon.
We have seen a new shape emerge over the last century and a half as the sun has set on western civilization. We are on the shoulders of a giant, as the saying goes.
Pictograms, characters and vocalizations were developed to allow human beings to communicate with each other. Our power of conceptualization, and consequently our ability to perceive time can be traced directly to our use of oral and written language. Hence the opening salvo of the gospel of John, “In the beginning was the word…”
All civilizations have one thing in common, just like all men and women, they are born in the same way.
Civilizations’ mother is language and we might define language as any self-contained collection of symbols agreed upon by those expressing themselves through it. The temperament of each civilization is defined by the meaning of those symbols.
For the West, the emergence of Christianity marks the ideological period of germination, through a process of individuation of ‘beliefs’ which set the stage for European culture, still centuries away on the other side of the dark ages.
An inherent paradox is contained in the social effect of Catholic dogma and its message. Catholicism hijacked all belief systems within its sphere of influence* and declared its own as the only means to achieving fulfillment –after death. Safe passage into the next life required only one condition: believe it to the exclusion of everything else. The other side of that coin is that the believer will not be rewarded in ‘this’ life and it forms the basis of the Church’s discourse. This effectively removes the ‘gods’ from the world, leaving people to their own devices – almost.
Following Christian doctrine ultimately leads to the elimination of reliance on external or other worldly forces, in favor of the individual, albeit vicariously through a particular symbol, Jesus – a living symbol that serves as the model which a believer must follow to reap the rewards of heaven. Christianity was a half-way point between paganism and the need for man to stand on his own, enough to lead men away from dissipating energy through an endless pantheon of gods and demi-gods, neglecting their own power.
But the most significant and overlooked, perhaps even completely ignored contribution of Christianity to the world is the invention of mass media.
Jesus on the cross was the first full-fledged logotype. The campaign to burn this image into people’s minds was so great that it spawned a counter movement known as Iconoclasm.
Two thousand and some odd years later you may still find an iconoclast somewhere, but you can bet he watches TV.
A NEW LANGUAGE
The new shape that is emerging, the new civilization comes to us from our newest ‘alphabetized’ form of communication: images.
Words are easily distinguished from our perceptions, but TV and film have blurred the line considerably, to the point that some of the most vulnerable psyches in our society struggle to tell the difference*, and it might not be farfetched to state that, in a much broader sense, this is true for most people as well, though in a less obvious form.
When speaking of people’s growing threshold for ‘violence’, it is said that we are ‘de-sensitized’. Repeated viewing of violent images dulls our response to ‘violence’ whether we encounter it on a screen or in our actual lives. The point to make here is that so-called ‘de-sensitization’ is an example of how we as human beings process and assimilate the new visual language.
We are naturally wired to perceive visual information (closely aided by audible cues) as the supreme source of fact and truth – “I’ll believe it when I see it” is a phrase that bluntly expresses the ultimate distrust we have in words and the ultimate faith we have in images.
A feature film can be a powerful experience precisely because it tricks us into suspending our belief, allowing us to accept what we see as if actually occurring. A general understanding of this new language is still in its infancy, most people don’t know the ‘alphabet’ of images. There are, however, people who understand the new language quite well. You can find plenty in Hollywood, but the true masters are found in a handful of Advertising firms.
THE ART DIRECTORS
The power of advertising is largely misunderstood by those who are exposed to it. It has been tasked with changing cultural idiosyncrasies and has performed flawlessly almost every time. In the 1950’s DeBeers, the diamond cartel, decided to create a market in Japan. The J. Walter Thompson advertising firm was hired to change the traditional Japanese engagement ritual of exchanging wooden cups in favor of a diamond ring. The campaign was a total success and only took a few years.
Today, there are a lot of people trying to make us believe something, anything, it seems.
We have crossed that threshold where belief is only a ‘click’ away and the logotypes etched in our ‘corneas’ are so many that everyday is a buffet of sorts. No longer is belief a matter of survival, only a matter of choice.
We’ve come a long way, Baby – Slogan for Virginia Slims cigarettes