Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 9 – uploaded by Gazi Islam

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Ambivalence of Spectators and Actors gar float pulled by donkey (see Figure 9). As pedestrians, the only thing that distinguished them from the crowd were their costumes (although the spectators are often also in costumes) and their wooden, papier-maché sperm-topped batons, which they often let stray into the crowd and sometimes lost to avid spectators. Often, outsiders joined the parade; although they had not paid, no one complained, and many were given baton “spermes’ to carry. At the ground level, actors shared kisses and embraces with the crowd, often exchanging personal items such as jackets, hats, shoes, or flasks, when paraders ran out of beads. Often the parade stopped momentarily, and MKS members ran into local bars to use the toilets. In general, this highly interactive nature of the parade may work to blur the boundaries of the organi- zation, in contrast to traditional parades, where breaking the parade line would be unthinkable. However, this does not prevent the establishment of tight iden- tity bonds between MKS members, many of whom chanted ‘Spermes’ loudly throughout the entire parade. Similarly, during the Mardi Gras day march, many spectators were surprised to see a new krewe suddenly emerge onto the parade route on foot. While MKS threw beads to the crowd, many threw beads to the krewe (notably, during the current study, krewe members were also given bar- becued chicken by a friendly spectator), a practice that would be unheard of in mainstream krewes and which highlights the ambiguity of role distinctions between audience and krewe members.

Figure 9 Ambivalence of Spectators and Actors gar float pulled by donkey (see Figure 9). As pedestrians, the only thing that distinguished them from the crowd were their costumes (although the spectators are often also in costumes) and their wooden, papier-maché sperm-topped batons, which they often let stray into the crowd and sometimes lost to avid spectators. Often, outsiders joined the parade; although they had not paid, no one complained, and many were given baton “spermes’ to carry. At the ground level, actors shared kisses and embraces with the crowd, often exchanging personal items such as jackets, hats, shoes, or flasks, when paraders ran out of beads. Often the parade stopped momentarily, and MKS members ran into local bars to use the toilets. In general, this highly interactive nature of the parade may work to blur the boundaries of the organi- zation, in contrast to traditional parades, where breaking the parade line would be unthinkable. However, this does not prevent the establishment of tight iden- tity bonds between MKS members, many of whom chanted ‘Spermes’ loudly throughout the entire parade. Similarly, during the Mardi Gras day march, many spectators were surprised to see a new krewe suddenly emerge onto the parade route on foot. While MKS threw beads to the crowd, many threw beads to the krewe (notably, during the current study, krewe members were also given bar- becued chicken by a friendly spectator), a practice that would be unheard of in mainstream krewes and which highlights the ambiguity of role distinctions between audience and krewe members.

Related Figures (8)

I EE EE In short, what we view as organization, societal parody, and satire, others may readily view as pornographic. Not only sexual, KdV and MKS parody political and religious symbols, with signs saying ‘Lost Commandments: Burning Bushes’ or ‘What would Jesus Bomb?’ (see Figure 2). Some people are dressed in President Bush and Vice-President Cheney masks, wearing a papal crown or bishop’s cap (see Figure 3). Some parades feature tank replicas with signs reading ‘sponsored by Hali-bear-ton’ (see Figure 4). In addition, some break racial/sexual taboos against mixed-group marriage. In sum, these costumes and floats are meant to be provocative. crown or bishop’s cap (see Figure 3). Some parades feature tank replicas with
I EE EE In short, what we view as organization, societal parody, and satire, others may readily view as pornographic. Not only sexual, KdV and MKS parody political and religious symbols, with signs saying ‘Lost Commandments: Burning Bushes’ or ‘What would Jesus Bomb?’ (see Figure 2). Some people are dressed in President Bush and Vice-President Cheney masks, wearing a papal crown or bishop’s cap (see Figure 3). Some parades feature tank replicas with signs reading ‘sponsored by Hali-bear-ton’ (see Figure 4). In addition, some break racial/sexual taboos against mixed-group marriage. In sum, these costumes and floats are meant to be provocative. crown or bishop’s cap (see Figure 3). Some parades feature tank replicas with
Given the nature of the organizational data described above, one may ask if our own article is too controversial, dealing with body parts and fluids and grotesque humor. In defense of our presentation of taboo, we note that several key works in the academic cannon have emphasized taking on the very frames of reference implicit in the subjects involved, thus using narrative to participate in the traditions under study. This is apparent in such classic works as Geertz’s (1973) ‘penetrating’ exploration of the Balinese Cockfight as ‘deep play’, and De Andrade’s (1970) ‘Anthropophagy Manifesto’. Thus, some degree of grotesque- ness is called for so as not to betray one’s subject matter under the guise of academic style.
Given the nature of the organizational data described above, one may ask if our own article is too controversial, dealing with body parts and fluids and grotesque humor. In defense of our presentation of taboo, we note that several key works in the academic cannon have emphasized taking on the very frames of reference implicit in the subjects involved, thus using narrative to participate in the traditions under study. This is apparent in such classic works as Geertz’s (1973) ‘penetrating’ exploration of the Balinese Cockfight as ‘deep play’, and De Andrade’s (1970) ‘Anthropophagy Manifesto’. Thus, some degree of grotesque- ness is called for so as not to betray one’s subject matter under the guise of academic style.
Data were collected during formal and informal events leading up to, and including, the MKS parade on Mardi Gras day (as mentioned above, the second, informal parade after the official KdV event two weeks earlier). The first two authors had participated in MKS for four years prior to the beginning of data collection, and began participant observations with note-taking in September of
Data were collected during formal and informal events leading up to, and including, the MKS parade on Mardi Gras day (as mentioned above, the second, informal parade after the official KdV event two weeks earlier). The first two authors had participated in MKS for four years prior to the beginning of data collection, and began participant observations with note-taking in September of
Such ritual degradation should not be seen as aiming to destroy political forms, but rather to bring these forms down to earth, captivating them at the level of local material culture. In this sense, sexuality in carnivalesque forms is semiotically opposed to formalized sexuality in spectacular events. For exam- ple, Barthes (1970) described the sexuality of striptease as antisexual and dis- tancing, and the notion of the “objectifying’ nature of sexual exposure has an elal borate history in the academic literature (e.g. De Beauvoir 1952; Fredrickson and Roberts 1997). This use of the body in an objectifying way seems well em the bodied in mainstream Mardi Gras parades, where the “King and Queen’ of krewes stand on tall platforms, intricately adorned and masked (Kinser 1990). The opposite is the case with KdV, whose ‘subjectification’ of the body em phasizes the exposure and celebration of bodies of all shapes and sizes, adding caricatured bodily enhancements, and turning on its head the traditional norms of physical beauty (see Figure 6).
Such ritual degradation should not be seen as aiming to destroy political forms, but rather to bring these forms down to earth, captivating them at the level of local material culture. In this sense, sexuality in carnivalesque forms is semiotically opposed to formalized sexuality in spectacular events. For exam- ple, Barthes (1970) described the sexuality of striptease as antisexual and dis- tancing, and the notion of the “objectifying’ nature of sexual exposure has an elal borate history in the academic literature (e.g. De Beauvoir 1952; Fredrickson and Roberts 1997). This use of the body in an objectifying way seems well em the bodied in mainstream Mardi Gras parades, where the “King and Queen’ of krewes stand on tall platforms, intricately adorned and masked (Kinser 1990). The opposite is the case with KdV, whose ‘subjectification’ of the body em phasizes the exposure and celebration of bodies of all shapes and sizes, adding caricatured bodily enhancements, and turning on its head the traditional norms of physical beauty (see Figure 6).
Pigure /. An exaggerated, inflatable male genital and a cross-dressing woman
Pigure /. An exaggerated, inflatable male genital and a cross-dressing woman
Related topics:
BusinessOrganizational BehaviorManagementBusiness AdministrationSociologyOrganizational PsychologyAnthropologyCultural SociologyOrganizational TheorySocial Sciences
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved