This qualitative study uses juxtapositional, intersectional and critical discourse analyses as one composite framework to assess Black female victimness and matriarchy in three Tyler Perry films.  Findings exposed a transitional archetype model consisting of 5 domains (Victim, Bitterfruit, Matriarch, Forgiver and Princess) whereby victimized characters are portrayed using racist and sexist stereotypes.  Additionally, rich juxtapositions in the films with regard to Black female victimness and matriarchy were also revealed.  These juxtapositions play out in the transitional archetype model and reiterate a harmful racist gendered stereotype: strong, Black women (matriarchs) are not and cannot, by way of their strength, aggressiveness and violent dispositions be legitimate victims.  This major finding, in addition to other findings based on the model and juxtapositional discourse analysis, expose important implications for social work practice, education and future scholarship.https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/gradposters/1011/thumbnail.jp

Ross, Avina

VCU Scholars Compass

Virginia Commonwealth UniversityVCU Scholars CompassGraduate Research Posters Graduate School2015“Rip It!”: A Juxtapositional and Critical DiscourseAnalysis of Gender Violence in 3 Tyler Perry FilmsAvina RossVirginia Commonwealth University, rossai@vcu.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/gradpostersPart of the Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence Commons, Gender and Sexuality Commons,Other Film and Media Studies Commons, Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and HistoricalMethodologies Commons, Race and Ethnicity Commons, Social Work Commons, and the Women'sStudies CommonsThis Poster is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in GraduateResearch Posters by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact libcompass@vcu.edu.Downloaded fromRoss, Avina, "“Rip It!”: A Juxtapositional and Critical Discourse Analysis of Gender Violence in 3 Tyler Perry Films" (2015). GraduateResearch Posters. Poster 3.http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/gradposters/3“Rip It!”: A Juxtapositional and Critical Discourse Analysis of Gender Violence in 3 Tyler Perry Films Avina I. Ross, MS  Background • Gender violence in media-discourse is generally minimized, normalized, underrepresented and misdirected.1  • Sexist, offensive and prejudiced humor, jokes about victims, and language, frames gender violence as acceptable.2  • Controlling images in media make gender violence appear natural and inexorable.3 • Racist and sexist stereotypes of Black women regularly used in media: mammy, matriarch, welfare queen and jezebel.3  • Minimal social work attention is given to the study of gender violence in media. • Social work literature on media-produced discourse of violence against Black women is absent.    Objective • To interrogate media-produced discourse of gender violence against Black women by examining the contrast of Black female victimness and Black matriarchy in Black contemporary film.  Design • This qualitative study, using juxtapositional, critical discourse and intersectional analysis, explored discourse of Black female victimness and matriarchy in: Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Madea’s Family Reunion and Madea Goes to Jail. Methods • Main characters were observed for victim and matriarch attributes. • Recorded discourses: character demographics, personality and backgrounds; noted language/dialogue; interactions; scenes and character juxtapositions. Results • Victimness and matriarchy operate in a (juxtapositing) transitional archetype model:   • Victim: Primary female characters are victims and transition into other archetypes • Bitterfruit:  Victims lose stereotypical victim traits, such as passivity and crying, and take on hardened personalities and resentment • Matriarch: Next, characters evoke dominating, aggressive, tough and violent dispositions • Forgiver: Character forgives abuser; if not she stays in matriarch-limbo (i.e. Madea) • Princess: If transitioning character forgives, she obtains her happily ever after fairytale • Some noteworthy juxtapositions include contrasts between: • Hard matriarchy and soft victimness   • Protecting matriarch and protected victim • Violent matriarch and forgiving victim • Tragic matriarch and fairytale-given victim • Child abuse and corporal punishment • Black matriarch as problem and White patriarch as authority • Healthy and unhealthy relationships  Conclusion • Stark contrasts exist between discourses of Black female victimness and Black matriarchy and such contrasts are shaped by using racist and sexist stereotypes.   • Juxtapositions stage a fallacy: Black matriarchy and Black female victimness as mutually exclusive. • The films fail to present an option that opens up agency for Black female victims and survivors to be strong (via matriarchy) and in need of help (via victimhood). • It is essential for progressive social work to examine the impacts, agency and underlying meanings derived from viewing of media discourse.  PURPOSE 1.  Address mentoring as an important but under-studied aspect of social work education and practice. 2.  Describe and explore the components of formal vs. informal mentoring relationships. 3.  Compare outcomes of formal vs. informal mentoring relationships. BACKGROUND •  Mentoring in social work education is an under-studied phenomenon (Gutiérrez, 2012), yet many professional social workers testify to the impact that mentors have made in both their care r and personal development (Collardey, 2012; Pomeroy & Steiker, 2011).  •  Equipped with little guidance, social work educators and students alike often find themselves wondering how to pursue a mentoring relationship.  •  Current and past successful mentoring relationships can serve as guideposts for social workers who are interested in cultivating a mentoring relationship, or for social work educators who want to incorporate more mentorship in their current pedagogy (Pearson, 1998). •  The findings from the authors’ synthesis revealed both formal and informal approaches to mentoring, and that informal mentoring occurs more frequently than formal mentoring programs (Chao, 2009; Wilson, Pereira, & Val ntine, 2002).   DEFINITIONS Mentoring: “The process by which integration occurs in a developmentally appropriate timeframe. It is a type of interpersonal relationship that changes over time and includes the intentional process of nurturing, support, protecti n, guidance, instruction, and challenge with n mutually agreed upon and ethical parameters that include the integration of personal and professional aspects of an individual’s life” (Williams-Nickelson, 2009, p. 286). Formal: “Those that are deliberately developed, monitored, and evaluated by the host organization. Specific purposes and goals are articulated and processes, expectations, and structures are incorporated into the educational institution’s framework” (Wilson et al., 2002, p. 320). I formal: “Relationships that develop wit out organiz tional sanction” (Wilson et al., 2002, p. 320). Description of components of formal vs. informal mentoring relationships. Component Formal Informal Reference Career support: sponsorship, professional socialization, advocacy, teaching, coaching, protection, exposure, and challenging work. X X Chao (2009), & Wilson et al. (2002) Psychosocial support: trust, emotional support, shared problem-solving, role modeling, counseling, acceptance, and affirmation. X X Chao (2009), & Wilson et al. (2002) Protection and concern extend across work and non-work life domains.   X Chao (2009) Labels used explicitly (mentor/mentee). X   Chao (2009) An ambiguously defined and unbounded relationship; sometimes not seen by both parties as a mentoring relationship.   X Chao (2009) Organizationally prescribed goals. X   Chao (2009) Goals are not often articulated.   X Chao (2009) A one-way path of information from mentor to mentee. X   Chao (2009) Mutual learning and support.   X Chao (2009) Matching process can make/break the mentoring relationship. X   Chao (2009) Matches are more likely to be perceived in mentoring relationships if both partners have a choice in the process. X   Chao (2009) Intensity is much greater because each party is intrinsically motivated to be in the relationship.   X Chao (2009) Both participants in a mentor/mentee pair have to be committed to the relationship. X X Chao (2009) Voluntary participants who select each other for the relationship.   X Allen, Day, & Lentz (2005) Provides a forum for venting frustrations and for learning about specific details related to the job.   X Wilson et al. (2002) Perceived to be helpful if the mentor’s interests match the mentee’s. X   Wilson et al. (2002) When the relationship is forced/required, mentors can sometimes resent the extra responsibility, especially when no compensation for time is included. X   Wilson et al. (2002) Goals are characterized by personal development and professional identification, not just production of products.   X Collardey (2012) Dydactic structure increases the likelihood of meaningful and frequent interactions.   X Allen, Eby, & Lentz (2006) Mutual liking, identification, and attraction are catalysts for relationship initiation.   X Allen et al. Studies and meta-analyses comparing outcomes of formal vs. informal mentoring relationships. Study Design Methods Subjects Outcomes related to formal vs informal mentoring Wilson et al. 2002 Non-experimental Semi-structured interview by phone involving both open-ended and specific questions. 19 faculty members, graduated with doctoral degrees in past 2 years, working in full-time positions at accredited schools of social work. •  Formal mentors were helpful in adjusting to a new job and workplace. •  Even when participants believed formal relationships in the past were not helpful, informal mentorship was strongly endorsed. •  17 of the participants reported being satisfied with the mentorship experience. •  The option of developing an informal mentoring relationship is important, even if a formal mentor is already assigned. •  Formal mentoring assignments seemed to be helpful if the mentor’s research or teaching interests matched those of the mentee. Allen, Eby, & Lentz (2006) Cross-sectional, single survey. Structured questionnaire. 175 protégés from health care, manufacturing, oil, and technology industries. •  For formal programs, voluntary participation, proximity, and receipt of training were not related to mentoring outcomes (career and psychosocial mentoring, role modeling, and mentorship quality), but protégé input into the match, mentor input into the match, and protégé reports of training quality were related to some outcomes. Ragins & Cotton (1999) Cross-sectional, single survey Structured questionnaire. Random sample of mailing lists of national professional associations in engineering, social work, and journalism.  654 women, 500 men, 8 unidentified gender. •  Protégés of informal mentors perceived them as more effective and had greater compensation (M=$56,629) versus those with formal mentors (M=$48,107). •  Protégés with informal mentors also received more career outcomes than nonmentored individuals, but no significant differences were found between nonmentored and formally mentored individuals. Scandura & Williams (2001)  Cross-sectional, single survey Structured questionnaire. 365 MBA students •  Informal protégé reports of mentoring functions (e.g., career support, psychosocial support, and role modeling) were higher than those of formal mentor relationships. Allen, Day, & Lentz (2005) Cross-sectional, single survey Structured questionnaire. 211 participants from two organizations: a healthcare organization and a technology firm. •  No relationship between mentorship type (formal, informal) and interpersonal comfort. •  Informal mentorships reported receiving more career mentoring. •  Mentorship type was not related to psychosocial mentoring or to role modeling. Chao, Walz, & Gardner (1992) Longitudinal, cross-sectional survey administered every 5 years or 2 years depending on year of graduation. Structured questionnaire. 576 alumni from a large Midwestern university and a small private institute. •  Proteges in informal me torships reported ignificantly greater career-related support than those in formal mentor hips. •  Mean scores for psychosocial support were identical across both groups. •  Informal protégés reported slightly higher levels of organizational socialization, satisfaction, and salaries than formal protégés and non-mentored individuals. Fagenson-Eland, Marks, & Amendola  (1997) Cross-sectional, single survey Structured questionnaire. 111 mentors and 117 proteges from two intermediate size technology organizations. •  Protégés perceived greater psychosocial mentoring in informally arranged mentor relationships compared to formal relationships, but their perceptions of career mentoring were not influenced by type of mentoring relationship. •  Mentors reported less frequent contact in formal relationships, but no difference among formal vs. informal mentors in reported career guidance, psychosocial support, or role modeling. Sosik, Lee, & Bouquillon (2005)  Cross-sectional, single survey. Structured questionnaire. 88 participants (34 from high tech corporate firms and 54 from K-12 schools). •  Protégés with informal mentors reported more psychosocial support, but there was no difference on career development, role modeling, organizational commitment, and career involvement. •  Formally mentored protégés reported higher levels of career development, role modeling, and organizational commitment in the high tech firm.  •  Informally mentored protégés reported higher levels of role modeling and organizational commitment. Underhill Meta-analysis     •  Informal mentoring had a small but significant positive effect on career outcomes, whereas formal mentoring had no significant effect. (p. 301) Eby, Allen, Hoffman, Baranik, et al. (2013) Meta-analysis     •  Protégés in informal relationships perceived slightly higher instrumental and psychosocial support and reported somewhat higher relationship quality than did those in formal mentorships. (p. 454) SUMMARY •  Results are mixed, some studies indicating no difference between mentoring type (formal/informal) and outcomes such as: psychosocial support, role modeling, and career support. •  Informal rel tionships were sometim s found to have a greater effect on outcomes such as psychosocial mentoring, better career outcomes, greater perceived effectiveness of the relationship, quality of relationship, frequency of contact, and organizational commitment. •  Formal relationship tcomes were for the most part not more effective than those of informal, with the exception of those in high tech firms. IMPLICATIONS 1.  Mentoring is a crucial aspect of professional success and should not be left to chance alone. 2.  Informal mentoring relationships appear to have better outcomes than formal ones, therefore formal programs may benefit from incorporating key aspects of formal relationships such as: –  Mutual attraction. –  Match input from mentor and mentee. –  Voluntary participation. –  Goal of collaboration. –  Both psychosocial and career support. 3.  Limitations to this review include: small number of studies and few involving social wor ; heterogeneity of variable definitions across studies; a lack of experimental/quasi-experimental designs thus a lack of ability to track changes over time. References: Allen, T. D., Day, R., & Lentz, E. (2005). The role of interpersonal comfort in mentoring relationships. Journal of Career Development, 31(3), 155–169. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: Closing the gap between research and practice. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 567–78. Chao, G. T. (2009). Formal mentoring: Lessons learned from past practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 314–320. Chao, G. T., Walz, P. A. T. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636. Collardey, E. K. J. (2012). Mentoring the social work academic: Oops, I broke Alice’s lookin glass. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 18(1), 11–19. Eby, L. T. D. T., Allen, T. D., Hoffman, B. J., Baranik, L. E., Sauer, J. B., Baldwin, S., … Evans, S. C. (2013). An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 441–76. Fagenson-Eland, E. a., Marks, M. a., & Amendola, K. L. (1997). Perceptions of mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(1), 29–42.  Gutiérrez, L. M. (2012). From the Editor: Recognizing and valuing our roles as mentors. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(1), 1–4. Pearson, P. (1998). The educational orientations of graduate social work faculty. Journal of Social Work Education, 34(3), 427–436. Pomeroy, E. C., & Steiker, L. H. (2011). Paying it forward: On mentors and mentoring. Social work, 56(3), 197–9. Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 529–50. Sosik, J. J., Lee, D., & Bouquillon, E. a. (2005). Context and mentoring: Examining formal and informal relationships in high tech firms and K-12 schools. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(2), 94–108.  Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2001). An investigation of the moderating effects of gender on the relationships between mentorship initiation and protégé perceptions of mentoring functions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 342–363. Underhill, C. M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs in corporate settings: A meta-analytical review of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 292–307. Williams-Nickelson, C. (2009). Mentoring women graduate students: A model for professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 284–291. Wilson, P. P., Pereira, A., & Valentine, D. (2002). Perceptions of new social work faculty about mentoring experiences. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(2), 317–334. C h a l l e n g e s  a n d  o p p o r t u n i t i e s  i n  f o r m a l  a n d  i n f o r m a l  m e n t o r i n g  r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Megan E. Gandy, LCSW, Ph.D. Candidate Jennifer I. Manuel, Ph.D., MSW,  Assistant Professor School of Social Work, Richmond, VA School of Social Work

“Rip It!”: A Juxtapositional and Critical Discourse Analysis of Gender Violence in 3 Tyler Perry Films

http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=gradposters

“Rip It!”: A Juxtapositional and Critical Discourse Analysis of Gender Violence in 3 Tyler Perry Films

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

VCU Scholars Compass