Recent orders
Love Simon Film Analysis
Love Simon Film Analysis in Sociological Perspective
Student’s name
Institution
Course
Tutor
Date
The film “Love Simon” has a lot of sociological significance. In a society where acceptance and understanding of others is more prevalent than ever, the film portrays two teenagers who experience this phenomenon as different from their peers. These main characters, Simon (Nick Robinson) and his best friend – Josh (Jacob Elordi), are in juvenile court after it has been revealed that they have had sexual intercourse with one another. The question becomes: what do these plot developments say about societal norms? This article will briefly introduce the topic of homosexuality and queerness as a whole to help start an open dialogue that could lead to a better understanding of this timely topic. A highly educational blog post for sure!
As hinted at above, there are certain terms that need to be clarified before diving into this topic. Homosexuality is when someone exhibits sexual attraction to members of the same gender. Note that this attraction is not exclusive to any one gender, which means that it is possible for a person who identifies as heterosexual to still experience homosexual attractions as well as any other permutation one could think of. On the other hand, queerness is an umbrella term used by anyone that does not identify as heterosexual or cisgender (a binary term used to refer to people whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth).
To examine this topic, we will look at homosexuality in a historic context and also consider it in terms of the sociology of gender, as well as the sociology of sexuality. Some other topics to consider are the relationship between religion and homosexuality, including Protestantism and Catholicism (specifically when looking at their stances on homosexuality), as well as homosexual individuals’ experiences with religion (Macionis, 2010).
There is also the role that language plays in shaping individuals’ perceptions about those who identify under the LGBTQ acronym. In other words, we will examine the ways in which language can be used as an agent of social change. In other words, we will look at the role that language plays in the development of new narratives. Through our explorations, we hope to gain insight into the complex nature of the issues surrounding homosexuality and ask why the LGBTQ acronym is such a popular choice for its members. We also hope to consider homophobia’s role in this discussion and how society can move forward in terms of changing discriminatory practices against individuals who identify under this umbrella term (for example, gay conversion therapy).
The goal of this article is to paint a sociological picture of homosexuality and queerness, thus incorporating the insights of multiple fields within sociology and critically examining how these perspectives interact with one another.
As an overview on the “history” of homosexuality in America, let us first consider that it was not all that long ago (1940’s – 50’s) when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by key medical health professionals, such as: The American Psychiatric Association (APA), The National Association for Mental Health (NAMH) and The National Council for Mental Health (NCMH). While these organizations have since changed their policies and now consider such categorizations to be unprofessional, the APA did not officially change its stance on homosexuality until 1973. Additionally, in 1962, a researcher named Evelyn Hooker published a study that showed that gay men were no more likely to show signs of mental illness than anyone else. This study is regarded as the first major step in changing the narrative surrounding homosexuality (Macionis, 2010).
As mentioned above, one of the most important outcomes of this shift in thought from medical professionals was their reclassification of homosexuality from a mental disorder to merely an orientation (i.e., homosexuals were no longer thought to be ill).
This is not to say that homosexuality has been widely accepted as a normal part of life throughout the entirety of American history. No, that is not what I am saying at all. Rather, I am pointing out that in recent history there have been significant strides made to accept people who identify as LGBTQ as full and equal citizens in our society (Robinson & Schmitz, 2021).
The social acceptance of homosexuality has been an ongoing conversation for centuries. Discussions about homosexuality often lead to key sociological questions such as: what does it mean to be normal? This is a question that extends beyond just the topic at hand and can be applied to every aspect of human behavior including race, religion, class, language, gender (to name a few).
As we dig deeper into the first point, ‘what is normal?’, we will find that there are many different opinions about what is considered normal and abnormal. For example: if one believed that blonde hair was not something to be concerned about, then this would be considered abnormal by another. In order for society to function, however, we must find what to focus our attention on in order to maintain a collective sense of “normalcy”, i.e. a sense of the “sameness” among all members of our society (Macionis & Plummer, 2005).
The commonalities people share allow us to develop a certain set of social norms as well as identify and differentiate behaviors that deviate from these norms from those who do not (Robinson & Schmitz, 2021). For example: Simon struggles with coming out to his friends, how he understands his attraction to men, what kind of backlash he might face for being gay and whether or not he will be accepted at school after news of his sexuality gets out. He also struggles with his mother’s decision to commit him to a mental institution because she believes he is mentally ill and believes he should be “cured”.
This film showcases the story of a gay teenager in America whose life is completely different from most, who gets thrown into the courts at a young age and faces devastating consequences that significantly affect his life. Before this point, there has not been a lot of movies like this (or series, for that matter). It has shown how discrimination can have a huge impact on those who are part of the LGBTQ community. This film manages to show just how serious this inequality really is (Macionis & Plummer, 2005).
The legal system has always been very relevant and continues to be so in many ways in contemporary times. The system is not only used as a means to fairly punish those who break the law, it can also be a tool for further discrimination as well. For example, in the film, Simon’s mother is sentenced by a judge after being found guilty of violating Simon’s civil rights. This decision was made even though she fought against her decision to have her son committed and spoke out to defend him.
As mentioned above, the film also highlights many parts of society which are beginning to shift towards greater acceptance of homosexuality and more recognition of its contribution to society. It establishes that in no way should one be considered ‘mentally ill’ because they identify as LGBTQ and are not heterosexual (or ‘straight’).
We can then conclude that “Love Simon” mainly takes place within a society with a positive outlook on homosexuality, which is also slowly becoming more common throughout more areas of America with time. The importance of this film’s release in 2018 stems from the fact that it is breaking ground on many levels. It portrays a main character who is gay and his struggle with discovering, accepting and understanding this about himself and how others would react if they were to find out (Berlanti, 2018).
References
Berlanti, G. 2018 Love Simon. Wyck Godfrey, Marty Bowen, Pouya Shahbazian, Isaac KlausnerMacionis, J. (2010). Sociology, 13/e.
Macionis, J. J., & Plummer, K. (2005). Sociology: A global introduction. Pearson Education.
Robinson, B. A., & Schmitz, R. M. (2021). Beyond resilience: Resistance in the lives of LGBTQ youth. Sociology compass, 15(12), e12947.
Love in the play Much Ado about Nothing
Love in the play: Much Ado about Nothing
Human beings are foolish when in love, and Much Ado about Nothing, is a study of this. It goes into the love between Beatrice and Benedict and between Claudio and Hero. The story between Beatrice and Benedict is a sub-plot, but nowadays it is found to be more interesting than the main plot, which is the love between Claudio and Hero.
Beatrice and Benedict had been playful adversaries at the beginning of the play, united only in their contempt and loathing for marriage. Nevertheless, once they ‘discover’ their feelings for each other, they let their guards down and allow their feelings to blossom. They discover that they love one another, by a cleverly engineered plot, set into place by their friends. Although it was a lie, it did have good intentions and did work out for the best.
Even before they love each other, what the other thinks of them still meant a lot to them. They would try through their ‘merry war’ to make others think that they paid no attention to what the other said of them, but they would be very hurt when they thought the other did not think highly of them. When Beatrice tells Benedict that he is widely thought of to be “the prince’s jester, a very dull fool” (II.i.103), he is hurt and becomes defensive. He is happy for them to be constantly bickering, but he still wants her to like him.
Once they discovered they were in love with each other, Benedict proves himself worthy of Beatrice by standing by her and agreeing to “Kill Claudio” (IV.i.279). At first he is not willing to do this, and tells Beatrice so, “Ha, not for the wide world” (IV.i.280). Then he realizes that not only is Beatrice right, but that she is also worth far more to him than Claudio is. He was previously ‘one of the lads’, but he then turns his back on then for Beatrice. He is willing to do whatever Beatrice asks of him, including ceasing being friends with Claudio, although we are told he is his new “sworn brother” (I.i.53). He trusts Beatrice’s female intuition over his first male assumptions, although he has no factual reason to believe her. He just has a gut reaction that tells him that the accusations against Hero are not true. Moreover, the fact that he is willing to go with that feeling, is what makes him now worthy of Beatrice.
Claudio is criticized for his actions in the play. He behaved appallingly, and so receives the least sympathy. Even when he is at his best, I never found him that appealing a character. When at the start of the play, he was ‘in love’ with Hero, he tells Benedict and Don Pedro how wonderful she is – “In mine eye, she is the sweetest lady that ever I looked on” (I.i.139), he never tells Hero herself, how he feels. In my mind, this is not what a romantic hero should be like. I am also extremely distrustful of his intentions for marrying Hero in the first place, as one of the first things he asks Don Pedro is “Hath Leonato any son, my Lord?” (I.i.220) It seems as though he is checking to see just what he will get out of the marriage, and if he had not got anything from marrying her, the topic of marriage might never have come up. This question of what Claudio was really getting married for, is again brought up when he agrees to marry Leonatos’, brother’s daughter. It seems a most unusual thing for a young man to agree to do, when still in mourning for his fiancée, and supposed true love, whose death he thinks he caused. It seems a very strange thing to do that is until you read Leonatos’ speech to Claudio, and hear him say that “she [his niece] alone is heir to both of us [Leonato and Antonio]. (V.i.257) It seems to me that the only possible reason he could have for wanting to marry a complete stranger is such strange circumstances, is because the fortune of two men is involved.
The deception engineered by Don John enabled us to see the two couples in their true light. We saw just how stable their loves were, or in the case of Claudio, how unreliable. Now we are left wondering just how stable their marriages will be. I think that Beatrice and Benedicts’ will be, because we know that they interest and stimulate each other, they know each other and their faults, almost as well as they know themselves. Their belief and faith, in each other and in each other has been proved.
Although Claudio and Hero seen to be happy and supposedly in love with each other, at the end of the play, I really don’t think that they will be happy together. At the very first trial in their love, Claudio showed us that he has no faith in Hero. He actually went out of his way to humiliate her publicly and to bring shame on her name. Although I can see how he was feeling, I cannot forgive him for wanting to do such a cruel thing to someone he was in love with.
Shakespeare shows us two kinds of love in Much Ado about Nothing. Beatrice and Benedict’s love is a very deep and powerful one. On the strength of it, they do things that are completely uncharacteristic to them. Benedict agrees to kill Claudio, and they both he and Beatrice agree and want to get married. Claudio and Hero’s love is a shallower and artificial love, if it is even a love at all. I have difficulty believing it is, for they have barely met before they decide to get married, and then Claudio betrays Hero terribly. But we have to bear in mind, that the idea of love at first sight was a far more acceptable and popular idea in Shakespeare’s time. In Romeo and Juliet, for instance, the two characters fall in love at first sight, though when their love is tested, it proves to be powerful enough to survive. In the same way, Claudio’s methods of courting Hero would have been acceptable by Shakespeare’s audience. Whereas now, the idea of Hero being proposed to by Don.
John, only to be told that she is really for Claudio, is bizarre. She was supposed to return Claudio’s feelings, so why did she agree to marry Don Pedro? Just as strange is Claudio’s belief, when Don John tells him that Don Pedro is wooing Hero for herself.
When he is tricked into believing that Don Pedro is wooing Hero for himself, he says, “Friendship is constant in all other things, Save in the office and affairs of love” (II.i.131).
He not only does not have faith in his fiancée, but also in his friends. He is very untrusting and ready to believe the worst in people.
I find it interesting that Claudio refuses to marry Hero when he thinks she has been unfaithful to him, as it shows us that possibly, there love wasn’t as strong as it should have been, in the first place. He does not seek her out to talk to her, to find out whether what he thinks he has seen was true or not, but instead lets his anger take hold.
He is very bad at handling situations. Beatrice is much better, and when she is proposed to by Don Pedro – “Will you have me lady?” (II.i.248), she knows just how to handle the situation. She replies “No…unless I might have another for working-days, your grace is too costly to wear everyday” (II.i.249). She is a very bold and blunt character, but she knows better than to hurt the prince. She treats the matter lightly, so that Don Pedro cannot be hurt or offended.
I think that Shakespeare shows us in Much Ado about nothing, that love is a very strong thing, when it is pure. It completely softens the character of Beatrice, who at the start of the play says she would “rather hear my dog bark at a crow than a man swear he loves me”, (I.i.97). However, by the end of the play, both she and Benedict are writing love sonnets to one another. This change in their characters, is a shock to everyone, including themselves. The first time Benedict makes his feelings known towards Beatrice, he tells her “I do love nothing in the world as well as you, is not that strange?” (IV.i.259) He has trouble believing he could be in love, as does Beatrice who replies “As strange as the thing I know not” (IV.i.261). They do not know how to react to these feelings, but they are willing to find out together.
Claudio and Hero seem to be very plain characters. All we know about them is that they are in love with each other. There characters are like blank sheets, their characters themselves seem to be only plot devices, without them we couldn’t have got to know Beatrice and Benedict as well as we do. In contrast to this, Beatrice and Benedict have sharp, stubborn and lively characters. The greatest obstacles that they have to overcome, in their love, are each other. Beatrice and Benedict are equals, whilst with Claudio and Hero, it is clearly Claudio who has the authority and commands Hero’s respect. This makes a difference in their relationship and the way they act towards each other.
Bibliography:
Love For Sale
Love For Sale
From the outset, the author critiques the actual position of psychotherapy from a rare perspective, highlighting complex issues established in the formation of a psychothepeutic dyad. Psychotherapists assume a complicated role of offering professional assistance guided by several elements of professionalism and social responsibility. Despite the fact that the extent of personal relationship between the therapist and the client is restricted by professional boundaries mitigating dual relationships, it is difficult to isolate professionalism from practical client-therapist relationship (Bromley n.d.). In view of the author’s choice of title that captures the theme accurately, the responsibility of the therapist in professional exercise is inseparable from emotional attachment extended in the dyad as sympathy and empathy for clients goes.
A critical examination of the role of the therapist within the principle of empathy and responsibility over clients, it is difficult to draw the line between profession and social relations. By likening the psychotherapist to a ‘paid friend’, the apparent emotional attachment such as observed in friendships is illustrated. Contrary to ordinary friendships, the dyad is guided by professional practice which attracts fees for the service. The empathy principle needed for the dyad to discharge its obligations captures the friendship aspect, while the fee paints the payment concept.
In view of the endless demand for money during the entire therapy period for the services rendered, the author shows how the dyad is different from a friendship that is generally not conditional. Termination of remittance of the fees translates to the termination of the therapy sessions, even if friendship aspects are present during the sessions. Giving a listening ear as needed by the client is the sole responsibility of the therapist, which makes some sence for the charges. Listening is an important principle in therapy, which supports the client’s psychological composure needed for the healing process.
Alternatively, it is the role of the therapist to accommodate the errant social attributes of the client for the healing process to be sustained. The author reckons that the therapist must pose as a ‘tolerant acceptant…transgressions’ to depict the weird social sacrifice that the therapist makes to ensure comfort of the errant social nature of the client. This is a trade trick that instills a sence of self-worth, even in times of grievous social mistakes that would otherwise attract social judgment, isolation and torment. Perhaps the accommodation offered arises from the compulsory reward expected by the therapist, to cater for the social cost incurred.
Paying attention to the client’s needs and undertaking to facilitate their development and healing is described as rare social coat specially worn by the therapist. The author shows the high standard set by the profession in terms of the measure of willingness to accept weaknesses of social weaklings in need of professional assistance. The therapist reserves ordinary public criticism for certain psychological conditions affecting psychotherapy clients and must give the clients a ‘morally uncritical reception’ in order to attend to their psychological worries. The therapist must be closer to the client than the rest of the world is, particularly at the height of their weaknesses and make timely interventions instilling belief than showing hatred. The profession is therefore, perhaps, a balance between love and psychotherapy trade.
References
Bromley, E. (n.d.) “Love for Sale: ‘Psychotherapy as Prostitution’ Revisited,” [Online] Available from: <http://www.davidsmail.info/talk95a.htm> [Accessed 25 May 2012].