Forensic Entymology: How far does it take us?

Entymology—The study of insects. This practice has been used for years by forensic scientists to help solve the mysteries of crime scenes. This method was popularized even further when Gil Grissom, the CSI Las Vegas television series, emphasized the use of bugs found at the scene to help reveal mysteries about the body.

I found an interesting article, "The tell-tale grasshopper: Can forensic science rely on the evidence of bugs?"(mentioned in both news@nature.com and WIRED magazine) in which the identities of four bugs (along with other evidence) were used to convict a man with murder.

In this article, Vincent Brothers was tried for killing his wife, mother-in-law and children in Bakersfield, California. The main evidence used against him were the four bugs that Lynn Kimsey, an entomologist at the University of California, Davis, revealed during the trial. "A grasshopper, a paper wasp and two 'true bugs'...[showed] that Brothers' rental car had been well beyond St Louis" (Ledford's article). The scientists argued that these insects were indigenous to areas found only west of Missouri, thus indicating the car had traveled west of St. Louis.

Even though the accused said that he drove the car no further west than St. Louis, Missouri, the enymologic evidence said otherwise. Although, one has to question: how accurate can this type of investigation really be? When working with dead bodies, it is reasonable to scrutinize the developmental stages of maggots found around the body to estimate how long the body has been dead. However, when looking at insect carcasses that are plastered on a rental car's radiator and air filters, there is so much uncertainty about how and when the bug got there along with the transportation mehtod, that it is hard to imagine such evidence would actually be looked at seriously in court.

It is true that investigators have been using "insect informants for centuries, typically focusing on the flies that colonize dead bodies, [and] if the conditions are right, such bugs can reveal how long a body has been dead, if the victim was poisoned, or wheter the body has been moved. Bugs can also help to track movement -- a squashed bug plucked from somen's shoe treds or a revealing insect bite form a geographically limited pest can all be clues of where a suspect has been" (Ledford's article). But this type of detective science is based on the geographic location of where bugs are normally found, and there are no distinct lines that can be drawn, as they did in this trial with the boundaries of various insect's habitats.

Sure, an approximate area could be estimated, but the fact that an exact line was drawn to divide where one species of grasshopper or wasp was found seems flawed. With migration and climate changes, along with the reliance on outdated maps of these insect’s natural distribution, such claims can not be rightfully presented in the courts.

Forensic science is the application based on the analysis of evidence to answer questions of interest for the legal system; however, as the article also states, the clues scientists use can be uncertain. Thus, even Kimsey, one of the 137 witnesses that took the stand in this case, worries about the skills entomologists employ to determine the identity of bugs.

With modern technologies at investigator’s disposals, having claims of any uncertainty or dependence on an outdated map is unacceptable to have as evidence presented in the courts. As Jeffrey Wells, a forensic entomologist at West Virginia University in Morgantown, declared, “"We have classic publications about bug distribution from maybe 50 years ago that are quite good, but some things have changed. Some distributional records are out of date." Thus, with the idea that insects may wander outside their areas through either natural or unnatural (by hitching a ride on a truck, etc) means, a jury couldn’t possibly consider this when decided on a murder case.

Such evidence, I think, should stick to describing dead bodies; otherwise, the system will convict the wrong man for murder because the fact of bug migration and climate change are being overlooked.

This article brings out an uncertainty that scientists need to address. As one blogger noted, “Maybe I just haven't seen the right episodes, but wouldn't it be nice if CSI did a show on just how unclear forensic technologies can sometimes be?” This is a valid point, as the reliance on technology to identify the species increases, the reliance on natural intuition and classical morphology disappears, and investigators look at the bugs only through a machine, rather than through their own eyes.

Although, with the reliance on genetic sequencing, scientists are using only a small database, as all the genes of various insects have not yet been sequenced nor do I think they will ALL ever be. So that means it's back to the basics--learning the morphology of insects the traditional way, rather than waiting on a machine or an archaic map to decide the correct identity and location of an insect.

I Spit on Your Grave (Day of the Woman)

I Spit on Your Grave (Day of the Woman)

Day of the Woman (the title preferred by its director Meir Zarchi), also known as I Hate Your Guts and The Rape and Revenge of Jennifer Hill, was controversial enough to earn an X-rating upon its original U.S. release in 1978. Since it was poorly received at the box office, distributor Jerry Gross renamed the film I Spit on Your Grave (after the Stateside title of Michel Gast’s 1959 controversial French drama, J'irai cracher sur vos tombes) for its re-release in 1981. According to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the more offensive and exploitative title led the film to greater publicity. Shocked by the harrowing images of rape and revenge, conservative critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert launched a campaign against the film. In addition, the film was branded with the label “Video Nasty” in the United Kingdom; it was also banned in many countries, including Germany, Australia, and New Zealand.

Zarchi claimed that the inspiration for this film came from a personal encounter with a woman who was raped by two men. When he brought the traumatized woman to the nearest police station, the police officer, described as “not fit to wear the uniform” by Zarchi, tied the woman up in police red tape and forced her to file a report. Instead of treating the woman with compassion and understanding, the officer delayed taking her to the hospital. Zarchi decided to re-tell the woman’s story through a film. However, this time, instead of going to the police, she would take her own revenge (IMDb).

I Spit on Your Grave seems to offer brutal shock therapy to middle-class ennui; in the film, Jennifer Hill (Camille Keaton), a sophisticated writer from New York City, is raped by four men when she temporarily moves to the country for the summer. However, it seems to me that she asked for it. When she first arrived at the local gas station, she got out of the car and walked back and forth in front of the gas station manager, Johnny. She was wearing a short skirt, thereby exposing her “damn sexy legs,” as Johnny described them. She did not seem to be oblivious to the male gaze upon her.

Then, when Matthew, the village retard, delivered a bag of supermarket groceries to Jennifer’s house, she was also wearing exposing clothing. When she noticed that Matthew seemed to be interested in her, she flirted with him:

Matthew: Do you have a boyfriend?
Jennifer: I have many boy friends.
Matthew: Can I be your friend?
Jennifer: Sure.

The final match was struck when Jennifer sunbathed in a bikini. She obviously knew that the four men (Johnny, Matthew, Stanley, and Andy) have been driving their motorboat in that lake all their lives. The men decided to teach her a lesson. First, they circled around Jennifer’s canoe in their motorboat. Then, they chased her in the forest while whooping like Indians. Johnny, Stanley, and Andy challenged Matthew’s masculinity when they dared him to rape her: “You wanna be a man, don’tcha? Don’t miss your chance. You won’t regret it!” The traits of stereotypical masculinity are shown through the men’s “guy talk” and their constant bragging. At one point, one man even declared, “Total submission. That’s what I like in a woman.”

After the prolonged scenes of gang-rape, the film reached its turning point; Jennifer, wearing all black, knelt down in the local church and asked for God’s forgiveness. Her black clothes served as an obvious contrast to the pure white interior of the church. From then on, the film was all about her revenge. First, she seduced Matthew, her easiest target: “I could have given you a summer to remember for the rest of your life.” As he became oblivious to his surroundings, she strung a noose around his neck and hangs him on a tree. She then cut the rope and dropped his dead body into the lake. Next, she seduced Johnny into taking a ride with her in her car. She drove to a secluded area, pointed a gun at him, and ordered him to strip off all his clothes: “Now, on your knees.” When he angrily stated that he did not women who gave him orders, she fired her gun on the floor to scare him. He attempted to give excuses for the gang-rape that were extremely offensive to men: “The thing with you was a thing any man would’ve done. Whether he’s married or not, a man is just a man!” She pretended to forgive him and let him take the gun from her. She lured him into taking a hot bath with her.

As Lawrence Diggs once claimed, “The weakness of men is the façade of strength; the strength of women is the façade of weakness.” Just when Johnny thought he had gained the upper-hand again, Jennifer castrates him with a knife hidden under her bathroom mat. She locked him in the bathroom and left him to bleed to death. When Stanley and Andy realized that both Johnny and Matthew were missing, they attempted to attack her. She killed one with an axe and disemboweled the other with the outboard engine of the motorboat. The movie ended with Jennifer driving the boat into the sunset.

Jennifer reminds me of Denesa Steiner in The Body Farm. While Denesa kills for attention, Jennifer kills for revenge. While Denesa turns the role of protector into murdered, Jennifer turns her role as a victim to a murderer. They are both beautiful yet murderous femme fatales who kill men after luring them through seduction.

The film seemed to be slightly offensive to lower-class men, who were portrayed as lazy, unsophisticated, and with poor or no jobs. Jennifer, a sophisticated, middle-class woman from New York City, ended up killing all four of them. In addition, this notorious film lacked sophistication; the plot unravels through a linear time-sequence, dialogue is minimal, music is almost completely absent, and the characters are clichéd and flat. These factors seem to prevent the viewer from becoming emotionally engaged in this traumatizing film.

Roger Ebert called the film “a vile bag of garbage… without a shred of artistic distinction [that is] so sick, reprehensible and contemptible.” Zarchi denied that his film was exploitative; he claimed that the violent nature of the film was necessary to depict the raw reality of rape. Is rape ever justified? Do rapists deserve death as a rape victim’s ultimate justice? Are women empowered or exploited by the revenge fantasy? Is the film promoting immoral violence, or is it just trying to tell a story, as Zarchi claimed? And is the film ultimately feminist or misogynist?

passion and the unlimited human potential

more about GATTACA

GATTACA:passion and the unlimited human potential

Although Vincent eventually fulfills his dream of going into space with his own determination and effort, his success would have not been achieved without the help of other people. Whenever his true identity is at risk to be revealed, they help to hide his real identity so he can keep striving for his dream. Throughout the film, there are at least four people who have the opportunity to expose him. They are Irene, Anton, Lamar, and Eugene (the real Jerome Morrow). In Vincent, they see the unlimited human potential and his passion for space, the true superior quality of human nature that cannot be found in the inhumane environment of Gattaca. In a place where human spirits are isolated by shiny metallic walls and human bodies are subjected to the manipulation by science and technology, they see hope in Vincent to defy the fate set by science.

Although Eugene and Vincent are bound by their contract and their situation to cover up each other’s real identity, Eugene’s attitude toward Vincent changes from a belittling sneer to a complete admiration of his passion at the end. In the beginning, Eugene still lives in the bubble of his genetic perfection. When Vincent comes back from his interview, cheering that he gets the job, Eugene looks rather depressed and sends out a curt reply, “of course you get it.” Although he cannot tolerate winning only the silver medal, his belief in the perfection of his genetic composition is firm. However, after living with Vincent and experiencing his determination, such as the time when Vincent has to cut off and reattach his legs to become taller, Eugene expresses how glad he is that he has met Vincent. Eugene says, “I got the better deal of it. I only lent you my body. You lent me your dreams.” While saying that, the expression on his face is full of sincerity and admiration. Before his encounter with Vincent, Eugene’s goal in life is to meet the expectations people have for his genetic perfection. Even though he strives for the gold medal, it is highly questionable whether he chooses swimming because of passion. Most likely, rather than choosing swimming as his career, he is chosen to compete for swimming because of his gene, a gene which is believed to have been engineered for a superior physical strength. However, as the remark on the DVD cover of the movie says, “there is no gene for the human spirit.” No matter how advanced the technology is, even as in the movie where sequencing the entire individual’s genome can be done in few minutes, the human spirit cannot be manipulated or engineered. This is what Eugene admires Vincent for. With Vincent, they work toward a common goal. Vincent’s dream and passion become Eugene’s as well. Vincent lets Eugene experience what it is like to live for one’s dream, rather for one’s burden, such as Eugene’s own burden of fulfilling the expectation of his genetic “superiority”. It is possible that Eugene commits suicide when Vincent leaves for space because of his homosexual love for Vincent. Yet the more likely cause of Eugene’s suicide is his fear that he has to come back to his old life. In the next year without Vincent to provide the dream for which Eugene lives on, he cannot bear to go back to his old life when he is reminded everyday of his failure to prove the success of his genetic manipulation. Eugene admires Vincent’s dream and passion for space. With this admiration Eugene prepares the specimen for Vincent even though he has decided to commit suicide. The real Jerome may die, but Vincent’s dream can live on to keep inspiring others.
While with Vincent’s dream Eugene finds a new meaning for his life, Vincent’s belief that passion can overcome so-called physical defect shows the unlimited human potential to Lamar. While Vincent is supplying his own urine specimen, his conversation with Lamar reveals their common belief for the unlimited human potential.

Lamar: Flight got you nervous?
Vincent: There is a problem, Lamar.
Lamar: Did I ever tell you about my son, Jerome? He’s a big fan of yours. He
Wants to apply here.

Vincent: Just remember, Lamar, I would have gone up and back and nobody would have been wiser—

Lamar: Unfortunately, my son’s not all that they promised. But then, who knows what he could do.

Vincent wants Lamar to realize that he is always the best with or without his cover identity as Jerome. Lamar implies that he already knows Vincent’s true identity and he admires how Vincent strives for his passion. He states that “ Unfortunately, my son’s not all that they promised.” Who are they? They might be the genes inside Lamar’s son. Lamar’s son might be a “faith-birth” too and have some “genetic defects.” However, Vincent has inspired him to overcome whatever predisposition he might have to achieve his full potential or beyond.

While Irene and Anton each play a role in protecting Vincent’s identity, they act on different motives than simple admiration. For example, Irene is in love with Vincent and Anton shares the same bloodline as Vincent. However, Vincent’s courage and determination eventually expel any negative attitude they have toward his “ladder-borrowing.”

The Wellcome Collection... Mixing Science, Culture, and Art

Sir Henry Solomon Wellcome (1853-1936) is noted as a pharmacist, entrepreneur philanthropist and collector on the website for The Wellcome Collection. Not only did he have a large collection of medical and health related items, he was also one of the first people to introduce medicine in the form of a tablet and established medical research laboratories. Today the Wellcome Trust which helps fund biomedical research is the largest charity in Great Britain and some of Wellcome’s over 1 million medical and archaeological artifacts are displayed as part of the Wellcome Collection. This museum, which recently opened its doors to the public, was recently featured in the article Museum Portrays Medicine Through Art.

I really enjoyed looking at The Wellcome Collection’s website, and looking at some of the things they have on display. I found it especially fascinating that this collection doesn’t claim to be of strict scientific and medical value. In a world where there seems to be so many claims to the objectivity of science and the medical field, this museum aims to address the human fascination with the body. The website explains how objects are organized to help give viewers different perspectives on things,

“In 'Medicine Man' some objects are gathered by type and others by broad cross-cultural themes. Seven other objects are presented individually and are examined by a variety of commentators from different backgrounds, to show that one object can mean many different things and tell many different stories.” Medicine Man Exhibit

This therefore reflects the subjectivity of things in the medical world. By presenting objects from varying views, I believe that these exhibits will do a good job at evoking thought and encouraging conversations.

The collections contain a wide variety of objects as well. These include paintings and drawings that represent a particular view, Memento mori statues, a tattoo from an executed criminal, and a blown glass HIV virus sculpture that was created as a reaction to the artificially colored images of the virus portrayed by the media.

Phrenological skull, Europe, 19^th century

One current exhibit called The Heart looks specifically at this organ that has vital medical, cultural, and religious significance. This site goes on to explain the purpose of the exhibit.

“This exhibition looks at the evolution of our understanding of what the heart is, what it does and what it means. Concentrating primarily on Western medicine and culture, it brings together objects and images from the histories of both science and art, as well as from everyday life.

It follows the development of our anatomical knowledge of the heart, but also considers its far-reaching cultural and symbolic significance. Why is it that the pump that circulates our blood is so intimately bound up with the way we discuss our emotional and moral lives, and so central to the question of the relationship between body and soul?”

A donor heart about to be transplanted; Francis Wells, 2006.

In addition to the exhibits, the Wellcome Collection also hosts a variety of special events. These events include a wide range of activities, further reflecting the diversity that is present in the collection. For example, an event on July 1^st entitled From the Heart explores the heart and topics such as wellbeing, emotion, and heart rates in relation to music through an interactive workshop. This workshop will include “music, movement and projected images” along with “singing…live sampling and other creative and rhythmic exercises inspired by your own pulse.”

Another event four days later will include a Live Surgery. This event will allow people to view a live open-heart surgery via video-link. The event will also be moderately interactive as viewers may question the surgical team during the “complex reconstruction of a heart valve” and also be able to handle some of the same equipment used by the operators. The event also will allow viewers to “learn more about the patient and the impact the surgery will have on their life. Find out why preserving the natural heart valve, rather than replacing it with an artificial valve, allows the heart to function more efficiently.”

I think the Wellcome Collection is a fascinating museum. Because it has only recently opened to the public, we cannot yet gauge the response of museumgoers to these exhibits yet. I believe this has the potential to be both a popular and useful learning tool. Because the exhibits aim to combine science and culture, I feel that people will be able to gain a greater understanding of both aspects when compared to a collection that only aims to take one or the other into account. Science and culture cannot be wholly separated from each other, though many exhibits make an attempt at this separation. By understanding the powerful connection between the two, I feel that the Wellcome Collection takes many of the same considerations that we have in this class and will therefore be most helpful as a learning instrument.

I encourage you to take a look at the site and exhibits... or visit if you're ever in London. How does this collection help mediate the fields of science and technology with culture and art? Compare this collection with others such as Bodies: The Exhibition. What can we learn from one exhibit that wasn't found in the other? Also, how are the exhibits similar and different in their claims, goals, and effects?

Gattaca—What Defines Natural?

A few terms that I think should be clarified when approaching this topic are found below, along with a link to other variations of the words:

Genetics = “the science of heredity and variation in living organisms”

Determinism = “the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes”

Natural = “of or produced by nature, not made by men”

In Gattaca, the term “natural” referred to the “heteronormative nuclear family-making”, whereas “unnatural” meant an offspring was created through “cloning or genetic manipulation (falling within the realm of science)” (Briggs 94). Although it is quite ironic how the individuals that resulted from an unnatural birth (or birth in a bottle) were featured as "valid" and someone such as Vincent was categorized as an "invalid." In this film, technology plays a major role in deciding the quality of life a person will have based on the unnatural birth process parents go through.

Reproduction = “the process of generating offspring”

Technology = “The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives”

By combining these two terms, the idea of reproductive technology emerges, in which the article we read describes it as the process in which making genes and children are manipulated.

Reproductive technologies = “a term for all current and anticipated uses of technology in human and animal reproduction”

One of the major frustrations I experienced when watching this film was that which was described in the reading quite well: “genetic technology is made to stand for science, which is imagined as something done only by men, and contrasted with ‘natural’ maternity, in which women (who do not do science, and presumably stay home to act as good mothers) bear good children, enclosed within a heterosexual nuclear family” (Briggs 94). First off, how is it that the future reverts to the historic past of the placing women in the domestic role? Although one could argue that the role of Irene Cassini, played by Uma Thurman in this movie contradicts this point, I would say it only furthers this claim, as she is not allowed to advance in her career, and is told to do mundane work which is not in the description of her position. Additionally, if one were to argue that women should have no role in genetics in the future, then they most certainly have forgotten that Rosalind Franklin played a critical role in discovering the structural nature of DNA. She was a highly dedicated scientist and rose to the challenge of trying to single-handedly find the double-helix structure of DNA by utilizing X-ray crystallography techniques She is often overlooked because of her gender; however, as we progress in society, more attention is given to her as a contributing member to the discovery.

I think it is also interesting how Robin Roberts suggests that “more than other genres, science fiction is obsessed with the figure of Women: not only as potential sexual partner but, more interestingly, as alien, as ruler, and as mother” (Briggs 95). This article goes on to describe the dual roles women play in the films Alien and Aliens, with their implicated cultural problems with respect to the way they represent the mothers. I want to bring into question this idea of how women represent this dichotomous role. This reading also focused on analyzing Jurassic Park; however, my main interests were the scientific and gender claims presented in Gattaca.

After viewing the film, not only do I wonder about genetic manipulation of child-birth, in order to create a superior-being (as in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World), but also about the possibilities involved with cloning. Cloning is a heated topic of debate as it not only applies to people, but to organs, animals, and other organic compounds as well. With respect to cloning currently, there is a problem of certainty and knowing if scientists are truly capable of cloning human beings. The ethical problems of justifying cloning dominate the debate among the scientific community, government, and the general public. Additionally, there seem to be many limitations with the process of cloning, because there are so many regulations against its progression; hence, some advancements or experiments are carried out secretly, and not published until the government actually allows it. What are some of the many implications and problems that might arise if human cloning was permissible in the future?

The main focus of the reading today was on the futuristic idea of childbirth, and the difference between “faith-births” in-vivo vs. the genetic contributions of the mother in-vitro. It is inspiring in this film that a character such as Vincent, who was a product of God, rather than scientific manipulation, was able to deceive the system and achieve his goal. Additionally, as the text puts quite eloquently, “Vincent, as [a] hero, is never figured as particularly masculine in the Schwarzenegger mode, but is slightly built…appears androgynous or even feminized” (Briggs 106). This text argues that the film conveys him as gay and his secret identity is analogous to his secret sexual orientation, although I beg to differ as he has both a physical and emotional relationship with Cassini. The coddling and attention Vincent received as a child because he was thought to be sickly can easily explain this confusion.

A fascinating aspect of this film is the ability to learn about the body and its importance in this futuristic society. Ranging from the fingerprint, to blood samples and hair follicles, the innate naturalness coded to the body battles technology’s necessity for cleanliness and unnaturalness. The fact that Jerome is literally selling his body parts, and not the typical arm and a leg, rather the material that defines his genetics is what makes this futuristic society so absurd. No longer is an individual’s outer appearance of any concern, but really, technology forces everyone to look at what literally makes-up the individual. The investigators, as always, go straight to the body as evidence after the murder, following the traditional method of investigation.

One last thought the movie evokes is the idea that the future is not as glorious as people envision. “Gattaca wants the viewer to be very afraid of a technological future that includes genetically engineered children and the abandonment of leaving things to chance, because it means an end to humanistic valuing of the individual” (Briggs 106). Reproductive technologies and science in general are seen to destroy the natural order of things in this film, thus creating a sense of panic in what individuals will become and how they will make decisions in the future, since their entire birth was a manipulated and exact process.

"O wonder!

How many goodly creatures are there here!

How beautious mankind is!

O brave new world

That has such people in't!"

(Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Act V, Scene I)

Let us expect that such philosophy holds true, as this idea seemed to dissolve in Gattaca with the reliance on technology to run society. What does the future hold for us in terms of genetics and what we perceive as natural and ethical? Where do the boundaries occur and who gets to make this decision? Would the role of women be set back to the traditional domestic sphere or advanced because of further intellect and collaborative efforts they can create? These are questions we must answer before we can hope to move forward.

Where to begin with Briggs and Kelber-Kaye....

Starting out reading Briggs et al, I expected an interresting take on the issue - having seen the relationship between Jerome and Vincent as very fraternal, I thought it would be interresting to see how the homosexuality theme fit in.... especially since Vincent has a romantic relationship with a woman. Turns out this article is based on loose logic, and weak argumentation - and is written by people who appear to be slightly obsessed with homosexuality. They talk not about what the film evokes, but what they brought into it.

As for the Jurrasic park bit, I skimmed most of it and didn't find it that interresting... I haven't seen the movie in years, though they were convincing with their bashes on Crighton, but I think they inferred too much out of his Playboy quote.

Vincent, we all know, isn't the stereotypical macho-man, "Vincent as hero, is never figured as particularly masculine in the Schwarzenegger mode, but is slightly build, severely nearsighted, and constantly fearful that his identity will be revealed; he appears.... gay" (Briggs 106). OK, first of all making Vincent look like Arnold "The Terminator" would be ridiculous... as the Terminator is pretty much the definition of a techno-man. Secondly, that he's nearsighted being an implication as to his sexual orientation is absurd. It just highlights that he's not what society would consider the ideal person, and runs with the theme that what can be seen or measured doesn't necessarily prove a person's abilities - almost a parallel of anti-sexist and anti-racist theory. Because someone has a different type of chromosome does NOT determine their worth, though society historically sees it differently. Just like being near-sighted has nothing to do with your sexual orientation.

Moving on, on page 107 they talk about the tubes, "Evoking contemporary anxieties about AIDS". What popped to my mind was kidney problems, or cancer.On page 108 they talk about a sharing of body fluds indicating "rampant homosexual behavior". Or, maybe, a brother saving his borther's life with a blood transfusion? To me, the penis comment was not homosexual - merely highlighting Lamar's observational skills and also joking about the societal notion that having a larger penis makes you more "manly". The fact that the physician has a daughter, and is married, is ignored. The term "excited" can have sexual connotations, but doesn't always. I'm not even going to go into the logistics of having a homosexual relationship with a disabled man. Just because the two men share an unusual (almost brotherly) relationship - which Vincent eventually outrgrows - doesn't mean the movie is condemning homosexuality.

Notice on page 109 how the authors use "clearly" THRICE before making claims that aren't that clear. The effect is to try to make readers ignore the fallacies of the arguments, and succumb to the views of the "experts" - if you didn't see that which was "clear" then you must be blind... so don't even admit to yourself that this wasn't clear all along. The authors use the uhh... "brilliant" "clearly..."-argument a total of 6 times in the article.

On page 110, they appeal again to an objectivity when they say, "The slippage between nature, God, love, and utero births is UNMISTAKABLE AND DELIBERATE" (emphasis added). The intentionalist argument is bogus, because it could easily be subconscious (or non-existent). And, it is mistakable, sorry. I personally "mistook" the themes to mean that no matter whether you conform to society's superficial judgements of you, you can still succeed. On the same page, they say "all black men are the State" - since ALMOST EVERYONE is the state in this hypothetical society, I'm not really impressed with their observation. Maybe they would have preferred if the guy who set up the whole illegal thing were black? He wasn't part of the state, and that most certainly wouldn't proliferate any racist, essentialist views.

Homosexual or not, Jerome only has one friend, or even acquaintance, and is confined to a tiny appartment almost constantly. The fact that he gets jealous about his friend having a relationship probably reflects his own anxieties - not necessarily about losing a sexual partner. I've had many friends complain when their good friends get girlfriends and don't hang out as much. Are they all involved in homosexual relationships? Maybe, I don't know, but I doubt it.

Vincent keeps his desk clean because he doesn't want to leave any DNA evidence for "the Man" (read: government) to find. Then he says that cleanliness is next to godliness. The authors then say that "what makes him an individual, is God-given" (109). Somehow, the authors confuse Vincent's comparing himself to God as an agument of his talents being God-given. If I say "wow, i'm godly at pool" that is saying I dominate those around me at pool, not that God granted me the power of pool-playing. It is more of a denial of God.

The authors are, in my opinon, guilty of mixing an idea that even non-traditional masculinity has inherrent value with an accusation that "unmanly" men are homosexual. When Vincent refuses to test the girl's DNA, he is rejecting the societal claim that such testing is a viable means of judging, seeing, and knowing.

Finally, Vincent's "rejection" of Jerome isn't necessarily a bash on homosexuality in general, it could also be that he would rather spend his time with a talented, driven, happy person than with a suicidal, depressed alcoholic.... If anything, it's a rejection of the family structure, as the authors argue that Jerome is like the wife (which I can see... he does little but give his body to Vincent in exchange for money, never leaves the house, and whines a lot).

Jacob Riis: Nurture Not Nature

Jacob Riis took a different approach to identifying the criminal than did his predecessors or contemporaries of the late 1800s. He was “a newspaper reporter for the New York Tribune, and later, the Sun” (Phillips 25). Rather than looking to the individual for the basis of his criminality, Riis decided that an individual was simply the product of his environment. He did not believe that a criminal was born a criminal and that it was more common in certain gene pools. Instead, he believed that social circumstances were to blame and thus shaped the individual. In order to support this theory and convince the mass public, he began to compile photographs of the conditions that fostered crime. In the following picture found in Police Pictures: The Photograph as Evidence, convinced that the environment was responsible for producing criminals, Jacob Riis presents the conditions in which immigrants to New York City lived (Phillips 77):

Bandit's Roost, 39 1/2 Mulberry Street (1890)

In this photograph, the bodies are not the main focus. Instead, it is the location of these bodies that catches the eye of the audience. The careful lighting and the natural positioning of the bodies give this picture authenticity and give the audience the sense that maybe the idea of the criminal is not necessarily just based on biological anatomy or constrained to a certain "lower" race. If anyone was forced to live in the same environment, they would be privy to a similar fate. Below is another picture of the horrible conditions in which some grew up. Riis argued that their motives for committing crime must have a basis in their squalid environment:

Bandit's Roost, One of Four Pedlars Who Slept in the Cellar of 11 Ludlow Street Rear

Riis decided to promote his theory through photographs because "he found that words alone were not powerful enough to evoke the conditions he saw" (Phillips 26). Thus, the photograph proves yet again to be an invaluable tool to show the truth, even though it remains completely subjective to the whims of the photographer. What is interesting is that he did not just take pictures of actual criminals. He took pictures of single mothers, alley ways, and cramped living conditions. By simply taking a mug shot, the photographer removes the criminal from his background and because Riis felt that environment played such a large role in determining criminality, he decided to photograph the environment rather than just the individual. The majority of the photographs were taken in the neighborhoods of immigrant and minority populations in New York City, those populations that were deemed prone to commit crime by authors such as Cesare Lombroso and police inspectors like Thomas Byrnes due to their inferior biology. Riis wrote many books about his findings, the most famous of which was How the Other Half Lives. To see more of Riis' photographs, click here.

The Nature vs. Nurture debate is once again at odds and still exists when it comes to the basis of criminality. In present day, is there more of an emphasis on the biology or the environment of the criminal? What is the impact of that emphasis? How does photography today view criminality?

Police Pictures -- The Photograph as Evidence

List of Alternative Terms for “Flashback”:
Tell Back
Flash Memory Skethes/Stories/Scrapbook
Flash Déjà vu
ReCogImprov


Police Pictures – The Photograph as Evidence

Even before the advent of photography as a method of crime scene investigation, criminals have been identified as foreigners who simultaneously attract and frighten people. In the past, people witnessed death and violence through public spectacles such as gladiatorial contests and public tortures. Now, through the mediation of photography, people experience violence and see the criminal in a profoundly mysterious way: “The crime photo gives us imaginative access to savagery; the mug shot becomes a mirror of what we fear may reside within us. Between chaos and reason lies the photograph” (Phillips 13). Photographs of crime scenes seemed to present a sacred portrayal of beauty.

Preceding studies of the psychological complexity of human behavior, most people believed that the innate nature of the criminal was formulated and manifested through physical appearances. This belief is clearly shown in Panorama of Man, the frontispiece of the book Heads and Faces and How to Study Them: A Manual of Phrenology and Physiognomy for the People (Phillips 13). In this illustrated spectrum of racial (red, brown, white, yellow, and black), gender, age, moral (pious, worldly-minded, and vicious), and mental (wise, ignorant, insane, and idiotic) differences, the “lower” orders appear menacing and animal-like. With the birth of terms such as “social Darwinism” and “survival of the fittest,” the Victorian social philosophy was gradually shaped: one assured himself of his place in the world by pointing to all he was not (Phillips 14).

In Essays of Physiognomy, Johann Kaspar Lavater’s assumption “of the Harmony between Moral Beauty and Physical Beauty” meant that every morally good person was attractive, while every morally bad person appeared to be morally bad (Phillips 15). Interested in Lavater’s physiognomical studies, Franz Joseph Gall formulated phrenology and believed that he could read a person’s personality through the exterior formations of the skull bone (Phillips 16). Charles Darwin also believed that one’s inner character could be read through facial expressions. Keeping these theories in mind, Cesare Lombroso developed his own theory; he saw innate criminal traits as “stigmata” and considered the criminal to be an example of biological atavism that had a lower evolutionary status: “The criminal [is] an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals” (Phillips 22). In contrast to Lombroso’s theory, Jacob Riis focused not on individual will but rather on the social circumstances that fostered criminal activity. These claims gradually developed into the study of criminal anthropology.

In The Criminal, Havelock Ellis provided a summary of criminal anthropology and asked the following questions: who is the criminal, what are his distinguishing characteristics, and how do we identify him. Ellis also claimed that “Aristotle… [recognized] the physiognomic signs of habits, vices, and crimes, including many signs that are in accordance with modern scientific observation, [and] observed a connection between the shape of the head and the mental disposition” (Ellis 27). Therefore, a new type of criminal documentation began with Alphonse Bertillon’s anatomical profiles, complete with detailed descriptions, measurements, and two photographs. As the number of criminals increased, these standard mug shots (also known as portrait parlés or “speaking likenesses”) and measurements became harder to catalog and retrieve. In addition, two men, both named Will West and with approximately the same measurements, were sent to the same prison in 1903. Bertillon’s system was therefore discredited.

Eventually, photography became the “triumph of modern science” that made it possible “to preserve permanent and unmistakable traces of a human being” (Thomas 111). Edgar Allan Poe also epitomized photography as “truth itself in the supremeness of perfection” and “a form of representation that superseded language in its ability to approximate reality and achieve a ‘perfect identity of aspect with the thing represented’” (Thomas 111). Photography replaced paintings and illustrations as a more accurate representation – a better imitation – of its referent. Since the camera was regarded as a machine of scientific rationality that captured every moment perfectly, photographs were seen as objective tools for discerning truth. Early applications of photography in criminal study included daguerreotype portraits of criminals (such as Matthew Brady’s photographs of the criminals of Blackwell Island’s prison) and “rogues’ galleries” (which comprised of cartes-de-visites).

Attempting to visualize criminal types, Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, developed a type of composite photograph that “achieved a level of reality and truth superior to what its individual subjects could by revealing through the machine what the natural eye cannot see”; he demonstrated how individuals deviate from central “types” even though they are inherently similar (Thomas 126). This illustrates a “crucial paradox”: while there might be a “generalizable” criminal type with a certain set of bodily traits, deviant individuals can still be isolated from the type through their absolute unique identity. He observed that the features of the composites were much better looking compared to those of the components: “The special villainous irregularities in the latter have disappeared, and the common humanity that underlies them has prevailed. They represent, not the criminal, but the man who is liable to fall into crime” (Phillips 22). Galton was also an advocate of the human eugenics movement; he traced the aristocratic upper-class English to the “ideal” (albeit extinct) ancient Greek and expressed his fear about the demise of the white race.

Havelock Ellis had defined the criminal body as “an exotic, non-white, non-European, foreign body” (Thomas 210). Louis Agassiz, a “special creationist,” had also had a fascination with racial evaluation of African Americans, Asians, and Native Americans (Phillips 17). In Great Britain, due to the pursuit of new imperialism, the detection of criminal identity went hand-in-hand with the suppression of foreign nationalities. Criminal deviance became associated with issues of national security; as intellectuals romanticized “the foreigner” as belonging to a special class or race, violence in the cities was blamed on foreigners such as immigrants. This racial prejudice became the basis of Galton’s version of “great expectations”: he expected and attempted to distinguish racial elements in fingerprints.

As the public’s interest in crime heightened, subjects of death and violence seemed to be the preferred sources for the aesthetic expression of photography: “Photographs were a particularly powerful vehicle for creating vivid, larger-than-life characters that would arouse more interest – and sell more newspapers – than well-reasoned reporting ever could” (Squiers 42). For example, when a woman framed the death of John Dillinger (criminal with the highest-profile killing), his “manhood [was] ridiculed” and tremendous publicity was generated for J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1924 until 1972. Photographs of the dead Dillinger demonstrated the authority of law enforcers and created the illusion of social stability and justice (Squiers 48).

Since detectives and photography were both “fashionable novelties of the 1840s and 1850s,” metaphorical connections between literary detectives and actual photographs surfaced: “The detective’s eye functions like a camera, taking in everything and leaving upon his mind something akin to a photographic image” (Haworth-Booth 39). For example, as “the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has ever seen,” Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes often gazes through the lens of a magnifying class, presenting himself as a camera-like instrument of inspection. By using logic, rationality, and intuition, he successfully reads the criminal bodies (“books that do not permit itself to be read”) and determine the identity of the criminal (Thomas 204). Through these literary detectives, the transition of forensics from an objective science into a subjective art is demonstrated.

Although photographs were perceived to be impartial, interpretation is now known to be highly subjective, based entirely on one’s personal, socio-economic, and cultural experiences. From Galton’s attempted criminal-typing to theories of the “criminal chromosome,” scientific theories about criminal deviance have always been susceptible to bias. Is there really a gene for everything? Is there really a way to determine criminality through physical appearances? Are there really “natural-born killers” with tainted blood? How can we use technologies such as photography to solve crime while remaining free of bias? In addition, since privacy is such an important concept now, by taking photographs of suspects, how can we protect the privacy of foreigners while protecting ourselves from the criminal? And according to the Victorian social philosophy, are we taking photographs of criminals just to keep them on the outskirts of our society and assure ourselves that they are “not us”?

Felice Frankel - Science Photographer - New York Times

Felice Frankel - Science Photographer. She is not just showing us how science 'actually' is, because she is making decisions about what and how to photograph her pieces - and she works with the scientists to develop new ways of seeing and recording their findings. Many of her most famous photographs were actually amended and altered in some way and yet they impact our understanding of how things might or should look. Gorgeous photographs included - check out the slide show also.

Forensic Evidence, Genes, and DNA: Enough to Convict?

In crime fiction television dramas like C.S.I. and Without a Trace, DNA and forensic evidence are at the forefront of every episode. But what are the roots of such evidence, and how can they explain our fascination with crime fiction? In “DNA fingerprinting on trial: the dramatic early history of a new forensic technique,” Jay Aronson explores two of the first major trials in the U.K. that were resolved by DNA evidence. In the first case with a Ghanaian boy, serological testing was not enough to prove that the boy was his mother’s son, thus his lawyer was able to find another way. (Serological testing is based on antibodies found in blood serum and its results can be very limited in terms of what it reveals about genetic relationships.) Although Alec Jeffreys, the lead developer of “DNA fingerprinting,” was still testing this new forensic technique in 1984, he took this opportunity to see if it could be put to practical use. He carefully chose this name for the new technique hoping that it “piggyback on the long-standing credibility of traditional fingerprinting” (Aronson 127). The infallibility and objectivity that accompanied DNA fingerprinting due to the media hype was interesting because it was not actually used to solve either case. It was simply the threat of this new technology that allowed the defendant to be acquitted in the first trial and its ability to confirm a suspect’s guilt that allowed the criminal to be convicted in the second trial. Moreover, it is the public interest in DNA and DNA fingerprinting that arose around that time that serves as a means to understand the prevalence of crime fiction drama and the interest in forensic science today. Although science has become equated with truth, it may not be as reliable as people have come to believe.

For the past two decades, the reliability of DNA evidence and its ability to convict and acquit suspects has been put to the test. In high profile cases such as the O.J. Simpson trial, a majority of the evidence used by the prosecution relied on DNA profiles of blood at the scene of the crime. DNA technology was still relatively new, but modern genetics had already been introduced into the world of popular culture, which had its own implications. People began to believe that genes and DNA had all the answers and that they could therefore account for “every aspect of human behavior,” even criminality (Ross 241). DNA was seen as the ultimate truth. As the human genome project was also underway at this time, the craze for technology and the truth continued to grow. The desire to connect genetics with race and intelligence culminated in The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein. This publication tried to make genetic links between intelligence and race, which leads to the idea that the study of genetics may not be as impartial and objective as originally thought. The defense in the Simpson trial raised more doubt against the DNA evidence citing the high rates of error and racial bias in DNA typing. Thus, this was an increasingly difficult decision for the jury when it was time to make a conviction. The trial became one of race and class based on “an enormous amount of scientific testimony” (Ross 249). It raised many questions about the validity and objectivity of DNA evidence in the courtroom in the search for the truth.

This difficulty that jurors face when making a decision, and their supposed increased tendency to acquit suspects has been termed the “C.S.I. effect”. The legitimacy of this effect is, however, somewhat uncertain. The drama of C.S.I. is based upon “forensic and scientific infallibility” (Tyler 1072). The quest for the truth is always based upon hard scientific evidence because rationality is the only thing that can be trusted. Until someone is punished for a crime that he or she commits, there can be no closure. Thus, dramas like C.S.I. are able to provide us with the comfort of apprehending the criminal and end with justice being served. It makes sense that such a drama would be successful in our society that feeds off fear. Although the C.S.I. effect may be plausible, there are many other reasons that may produce a similar effect. When there is decreased faith in our legal system and government to produce justice, science seems to be the only objective authority. Thus, jurors choose to view the evidence presented to them based upon their decision to make a conviction. Their view of the quality of the evidence and sympathy for the defendant are usually major factors in how they decide. Their bias has a large effect on how they view the science. Thus, although this C.S.I. effect seems plausible given the similarity between the effects of exposure to mass media, their own beliefs, and pretrial publicity on a juror’s decision, there are other explanations for this phenomenon.

There is still contention over whether or not C.S.I. and other crime fiction dramas can lead to a decrease in convictions or if the effect is a result of other social changes. Jurors are affected by everything that they see and hear, thus how can they remain unbiased enough to make a decision based upon the evidence presented? Is all scientific information skewed based on the bias of the interpreter? If even DNA is not completely objective, as was mentioned during the O.J. Simpson case when DNA typing was said to be racially, then do we just have to wait until the next forensic technique comes out that will be even better and more accurate? We are constantly searching for the truth to punish the criminal and exonerate the innocent, but if science is not as reliable as previously thought due to all the preconceptions involved, then what basis is there for the truth?

The 'CSI-effect'

Originally airing in October 2000, CBS’s crime drama CSI has attracted a large audience. Viewers can now also watch CSI: New York and CSI: Miami, two series spin-offs. Brian Lowry, in his article “Pondering the Unsolved Mystery of CSI” states that he and others cannot quite understand why the show has become and remained so popular. Despite this lack of understanding, recent Nielsen ratings testify to the show’s long-term success. For the week ending on June 3, 2007 all three versions of the CSI series were ranked in the Top Ten shows viewed for the week. CSI was ranked in second, only falling behind Fox’s medical drama House. CSI: NY came in fifth for the week, and CSI: Miami had the eighth highest number of viewers. It is important to note that CSI is not the only crime drama ranked highly. In this same week over half of the Top 20 most viewed shows also related to crime and forensic science. This list includes shows such as NCIS, Cold Case, Criminal Minds, and Law and Order: SVU. (Source: http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/06/06/nielsen-ratings-for-the-week-ending-june-3/)

Despite an individual’s reason for watching any of these shows, the ratings make it clear. Not only is someone watching CSI, a lot of people are watching CSI and because this is the case, it is important to understand some of the cultural implications of the show. Cavender and Deutsch suggest in “CSI and Moral Authority: The Police and Science” that we are in an era where law enforcement and science seem to have lost some of their moral authority. They conclude that CSI’s ability to offer certainty through evidence and analyzation is a reason for the program’s success. (Cavender and Deutsch 68)

In an effort to attract viewers, TV producers tend to avoid straying too far from the cultural beliefs and assumptions shared by their target audience. This, in turn, allows for cultural assumptions to be reinforced through media. CSI is by no means an exception to this reality. The series reflects cultural views on many issues including crime, race, and gender. Gender roles in CSI relate to “techno-masculinity”, a form of masculinity that prizes intellect and technological knowledge with a lesser emphasis on physical strength. Women in CSI play a critical role in solving many cases, and have the same capabilities as their male counterparts. (Cavender and Deutsch 69) However, I feel it is important to note that while CSI and other modern crime dramas reflect a less sexist mentality, the lead characters of all three versions of the series are male figures. While women are increasingly able to help solve crimes, in many cases, males are still accepted as the lead hero in crime drama.

Crime drama not only reflects previously solidified beliefs held by viewers, it can have an effect on cultural assumptions made by viewers. One belief reiterated throughout CSI, according to Cavender and Deutsch, is that science equals truth and evidence is infallible. This assertion along with the use of physical evidence and technology to solve violent crimes week after week helps to enforce the belief that physical evidence and advanced technology are critical elements in correctly solving a crime. One quote from CSI says, “Evidence only knows one thing: the truth. It is what it is.” (Cavender 75) However, this neglects to take into account that evidence in itself is not what solves a crime. Evidence must be interpreted, and this interpretation may be affected by cultural beliefs of the interpreter. However, CSI fails to take into account the social context in which these interpretations are made. The forensic specialists and the physical evidence they collect are rarely, if ever, called into question. With this in mind, what is the effect of CSI, and forensic fiction in general, on our beliefs about crime, science, and evidence? Do we notice this effect?

Cavender and Deutsch also bring to the forefront a worry that some experts have regarding a problem called the “CSI Effect”. This is the assumption that viewers will be influenced by what they see on CSI and believe that they adequately understand forensic science. The worry is that if this effect does occur, as it is not proven, jurors “now have unreasonable expectations about scientific technology” and expect all cases to be solvable through advanced technology. (Cavender 77) What are the potential consequences of the “CSI Effect” on jurors? What are the implications for solving crimes and justice?

Newsweek Article

Happened to see this in an office today, it's the cover story from the May 21st, 2007 Newsweek:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18618970/site/newsweek/

I'd say this shows a serious cultural change (I'd say improvement, some conservative fundamentalists might disagree) from 30 years ago when the term transgender didn’t even exist – much less have a place on the front of Newsweek. I was wondering, though, why they refer to Hayes, the first example, as “he” even after having the surgery to become physically female? I thought that might point to a flaw in the article, but later on they referred to people, like 6-year-old Jona (who hasn't even had surgery), using pronouns fitted to their internal gender rather than biological anatomy. Probably to avoid confusing people from the beginning and leading them into a better understanding the plasticity of gender.

I really liked the quote, "Gender is a way of making the world secure," from feminist scholar Judith Butler. That's especially visible when you look at the way males tend to interract competitively - attacking each other's masculinity using feminine terms like, "you throw like a girl, pussy." The fact that such behavior is so prevalent could highlight undercurrents of insecurity - attacking a man's gender makes his world seem less secure. Of course, part of it comes from how ingrained that type of bantering is in our culture. Question to ponder: are actions like laughing at a guy who does something considered feminine, or telling sexist jokes done more for creating a community through labelling of an "other", or a way of re-affirming one's gender to oneself and to others? And, do those jokes generally have the effect of reinforcing existent stereotypes and power dynamics, or deflating tension caused by those power dynamics? Or none of the above?

The fact that they're letting transgendered people compete in the Olympics is pretty interresting as well.

6 Billion Bits of Data About Me, Me, Me! - New York Times

Have you been to a tarot card reader and afraid of your future? Well now you can change your genetic destiny by reading and interpreting your code:6 Billion Bits of Data About Me, Me, Me!

Silence of the lambs, The Masculine and Feminine Gaze

In the movie Silence of the Lambs, the director portrays Clarice Starling both as an object targeted by masculine gazes and as a source of feminine gaze. Under these masculine gazes, she shows her determination and strength. With her feminine gaze, she looks upon her object to solve the Buffalo Bill case through her sympathy for the victims and her ability.

Despite Clarice Starling’s intelligence as an FBI agent, few male characters in the movie treat her equally and with respect. Most of the males consider her as an object of interest. Although in many cases she is subjected to other males’ masculine gaze, she is able to use her intelligence to rebut their advances. For example, when she comes to check in with Chilton, Chilton’s first remark about her is, “We’ve had lot of detectives here, but I can’t remember one so attractive….It is Miss Sterling, isn’t it? …… Is there someplace I could call you in Washington for a follow-up, later on?” Instead of noticing her task, Chilton harasses Starling by commenting on her appearance. He calls her by the wrong name while stressing her title as Miss, indicating his lack of respect to her. He also teases her by stating her name in a rhetorical question. He advances even further by requesting to meet with her after she returns to Washington. Starling proves her ability as a FBI agent and shows her strength by first gaining respect from Dr.Lecter and then by deciphering the clues Dr.Lecter gives her. Chilton resents Sterling’s achievement because of her gender and her rejection to his sexual request.

Although Sterling is able to gain respect from Dr.Lecter, Dr.Lecter is very hostile to her at the beginning. There is a period of complete silence before Dr.Lecter first comments on her: “….. Do you know what you look like to me, with your good bag and your cheap shoes? You look like a rube. A well-scrubbed, hustling rube with a little taste.” Unlike Chilton who teases Sterling about her femininity, Lecter tries to defeat her by sharply pointing out her weakness and her purpose for visiting him. Yet Sterling fights back by asking, “Are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself?” As the movie later shows, many other men try to secure their masculine gaze on her either by questioning her ability, such as when she orders a room of men to leave so they can examine the body of a victim, or by teasing her feminine beauty, such as when the insect researcher steadily stares at her face. Toward the end of the movie, the director figuratively illustrates that Sterling has won the battle against the masculine gaze by depicting Buffalo Bill using the infrared binocular to try to gain an advantage over her in the dark basement. However, Buffalo Bill eventually fails to harm Sterling before she kills him because what he seems is her reflection in a mirror, that is, he underestimates the strength and determination inside her and has only looked at her physical appearance in appraising her.

While she is an object of the masculine gaze, she is able to track down Buffalo Bill with a feminine gaze. When none of her male counterparts notice, she discovers the moth in the victim’s throat, which later serves as the key in identifying Buffalo Bill. With the clue provided by Lecter, Starling begins to see Buffalo Bill from the victim’s eyes. She visits the victim’s home and walks in her room, trying to experience the victim’s life and to see what the victim sees everyday. She also talks to the victim’s friend in order to see who the victim’s friends are, which eventually leads her to Buffalo Bill’s house. In the movie, the director juxtaposes the actions of Sterling with her male boss’s to show the difference between the investigation results done by Sterling’s sympathetic feminine gaze and by her boss’s masculine gaze. Although equipped with modern technologies and with suggestions from his fellow male FBI agent, her boss is unable to find Buffalo Bill, while Sterling, with nothing but her sympathies and her determination, is able to kill him at the end.

Although the movie portrays the masculine gaze imposed on her more dramatically than her feminine gaze, her feminine gaze plays an essential and subtle role in helping her gaining respect from Dr.Lecter and in eventually tracking down Buffalo Bill.

SOTL, Objecting to Objecification

The statement “[Clarice Starling] knows that if Bill “sees Catherine as a person and not just an object,” it will be harder to destroy her” (Garrett 1) introduces the main foci of attention of Objecting to Objectification, as well as some of the major themes of the movie Silence of the Lambs. One of the most interesting aspects of Garrett’s paper is that this “objectification of” versus “respect for” an individual is applied not only to the character played by Jodie Foster, but also to Doctor Lecter a.k.a. Hannibal the Cannibal. Oddly, the 14th footnote posits that the phonetic “…similarity between “Doctor” and “Lecter” seems to indicate the degree to which Hannibal Lecter’s position and his person are one” (11). This seems to objecify (or functionify?) Lecter and thus clash with the argument that part of the reason Hannibal treats Clarice with such respect is that, “Clarice, who knows what it is to be an object, treats Lecter as human rather than an object” (8). If he were meant to be objectified as his “position”, why would the theme of his need for camaraderie be an issue? The answer, it seems, is that neither professional courtesy nor personal worth (as evaluated by the Doctor) would be enough to gain his respect – both are needed. I think that it would be more accurate to say that his name signifies that on a personal level Hannibal is a cannibal, but professionally Lecter is a Doctor. His use of the F.B.I. trainee’s first name serves to highlight that his interest is in what is inside her whereas her interest in him is in what he can do for her professionally. As Garret notes, “Clarice’s empathy works differently [than Graham’s]; she does not see things through the eyes of the serial killer who objectifies his victims. Her connection, instead, is to the victims” (7-8).
This interest in her “true nature” serves to elevate Lecter above both the other prisoners (like Miggs) and, more notably, above most of the other males in the work (like Chilton, whose intelligence and manhood were surgically and humorously removed from the equation when Starling rejects him, and then banishes him from the room… putting him on a lower level than herself and Dr. Lecter) (2). As Garrett points out, “Intelligent men, it seems, are those who recognize a woman’s worth and let her do her job” (4) – which most definitely places Hannibal in that category. Simultaneously, “what Lecter seems to respect most about [Clarice], as Terence Rafferty notes…is Starling’s moral core” (8).
Now that I’ve spoken more than enough about the relationship between Starling and the “Good Doctor”, it is time to refocus attention to one of the items that places SOTL as a debated candidate for a feminist work – the objectification of Clarice by the not-so-Intelligent men in the story. In reference to the various walks down the “male gauntlet” (5); I agree with Rober Ebert that “rarely in a movie have I been made more aware of the subtle sexual pressures men put upon women with their eyes”. Having worked in construction, I can affirm that professions (like the military) which are made up mostly of males can tend to exude a more-than-normal overt, aggressive and degrading projected sexuality… possibly to try to justify why a heterosexual male would choose to spend most of his time in the company of men. The habitual “leer” of men serves to objectify women and proliferate an already insidious power dynamic – there is no pretense than a man is looking at anything more than the most superficial level of a woman’s sexuality, and wants her (or more often the other males) to know it. Which brings me to an interresting point, that such objectification of women is designed to affirm a man’s heterosexuality in the mind’s of both others and himself. This points to an insecurity that is not exhibitted by the “intelligent men” in the book. The issue is not in that the man’s gaze becomes fixed on the female body, but rather that the gaze is fixed for the reason of establishing or highlighting a superficial power dynamic, a dynamic which still plagues almost every workplace and has the power to destabilize women and ultimately afirm Clarice’s notion that, “she knew what happened to a woman if she’s ever pegged as a secretary—it sticks until the end of time” (Harris 4).
Clarice proves her strength to Lecter by remaining resilient in the face of a man who, “is accustomed to crushing people through the power of his insight and well-chosen words” (Garrett 3). Her intelligence is undeniable, and she is forced through professional hurdles through which no man of equal intelligence would have to travel. Furthermore, she makes it over the Hannibal Lecter hurdle – which felled every man who tried. While many women may have tried to use their sexuality both for professional advancement and to get to Lecter, Clarice shows a depth of character and an insistence on remaining true – which is what ultimately leads her to success.

My thoughts on "The Mystery of Marie Roget"

I enjoyed reading Poe’s 1842 short story, “‘The Mystery of Marie Roget’ : A Sequel to ‘The Murders in the Rue Morgue’”. At first, it was a little confusing as to what was going on with the mysterious and dark undertone of the writing; however, we were slowly introduced to the characters and details regarding the murder of Marie Roget though the unnamed narrator. By having the story told through the eyes of the unnamed narrator, I almost felt as if I was deliberately detached from the story he was describing.

The detective, Dupin, used a clever tactic to gather information about the murder, by reading the various newspaper reports, such as L’Etoile, Le Commerceil, and the Le Soleil, which all had varying opinions about the discovery of Roget’s body in the Seine. It was hard to gather truthful evidence in this case, which I found interesting because the officers were offering a huge reward for any information that anyone had.

Eventually, even though there were several suspects, and many loose ends, Dupin was able to use reason to determine that it was a single murderer who dragged Mme Roget’s body across the woods and eventually dump her into the river. Dupin’s character was great, as he was able to look at the case without any emotional attachment. He went beyond the violence of the crime to pick up the details that remained as evidence. This is true detective work!

In one part of the story, Dupin discussed how this case was “a far more intricate case than that of the Rue Morgue; from which it differs in one important respect. This is an ordinary, although an atrocious, instance of crime. There is nothing peculiarly outre about it”. I thought it was ironic how he claimed the case was ordinary, thus was considered easy to solve, and unnecessary to offer a reward… especially, since this story was based off of the murder of Mary Cecilia Rogers, which still remains an unsolved murder case in New York City today. Nevertheless, it was an interesting and enjoyable mystery to read.

Visible Proofs: Forensic Views of the Body: Visit

Visible Proofs: Forensic Views of the Body
This is a fantastic exhibit at the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, MD. If anyone has the time to go up there one weekend, it would make for an interesting paper or blog entry! In the meantime, take a look at their site and see what the exhibit is all about. There's a series of entries on the rise of forensics, how to view a body, laboratory examples, what kinds of surveillance systems have been used and the new forensics with DNA and advances in medicine, viewing technology and legal systems.

have you heard?

Here is a photograph of measured ears for Bertillon's criminal sorting process.