Cinema Sociology: Cultivating the Sociological Imagination through Popular Film Author(s): Christopher Prendergast Reviewed work(s): Source:

Teaching Sociology, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 243-248 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1318381 . Accessed: 18/12/2012 21:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Teaching Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:22:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SOCIOLOGICAL CULTIVATING CINEMASOCIOLOGY: IMAGINATION THROUGHPOPULARFILM

CHRISTOPHER PRENDERGAST
Illinois WesleyanUniversint

A film/discussion series that broughtthe sociological imaginationbefore sizable audiences of adult communityresidents is described, evaluated, and justified. Theformat of the series is recommendedfor sociology departments that wish to strengthen their ties to the humanities. Two of thefilms used in the project are discussed. The Sociology Department at the University of Evansville operated a successful film/discussion series called "Cinema Sociology" between 1982 and 1985. More than 2600 persons attendedits 18 films, half of which had never been shown commercially in the area. Four of the first-run featuresreceived full-length reviews in one of the city newspapers, while others were the subject of short notices and synopses. The series raised the profile of the Sociology Department in the community, provideda needed service, and added to the statureof the University of Evansville as a center for the humanities. The purpose of this paper is to present the rationale, format, and evaluationof the program. Sociology departments in like environmentsmay wish to adopt or modify the format in an effort to make similar inroads in their own communities. Unlike other programs using feature films (Smith 1973, 1982; Demerath1981) and documentaries (DeFronzo 1982) in the classroom, Cinema Sociology was designed for an adult community audience. The program could be converted to classroom use, and some suggestions to that end will be provided at the end of the paper. But its uniqueness lies in its intellectual stimulation of adult communityresidents. CinemaSociology was sponsoredby grantsfrom the Indiana Committee for the Humanities in 1982-83 and 1983-84. These funds covered film rental, publicityexpenses, and postage. No admission was charged. The University of Evansville provided space rental, utilities, projection equipment and operator,and donated faculty time. The IndianaCommittee for the Humanities, like other state agencies affiliated with the National Endowment for the Humanities, does not underwrite projects for longer than two years. Consequently, thirdyear costs were covered by a donationfrom a local philanthropist,as well as a grant from the University's Informal Learning Program. The University's Development Office undertook the search for a local sponsor in recognition of the popularityand prestige the programcame to enjoy in the community. RATIONALE The Sociology Department at the University of Evansville consisted of four sociologists and one anthropologistin 1982 (it subsequently lost one sociology position). With fewer than a dozen majors and a large service responsibility in saw a need to courses, the Department introductory its strengthen ties to the liberalartsand humanities. It also wantedto increaseits visibility among adult community residents, many of whom continue their education in the evenings. Among other reforms and innovations, the Departmentdecided to seek outside funds to sponsor a film series it hoped would showcase the sociological perspective aroundcampus and in the metropolitanarea. From the beginning Cinema Sociology was conceived as a humanitiesproject. It provided an occasion and an environmentin which the task of film interpretation demanded at least the partial exercise of the sociological imagination. Like sociology, film exposes the viewer to social worlds beyond the orbit of personal experience. By inviting the viewer to suspend disbelief, the film accomplisheson an empathiclevel what sociology accomplishes through historical and cross-cultural comparison: creating the capacity to understand the oneself by understanding broadersocial context which structuresone's actions and choices. The project's goal was to cultivate this quality of mind in a voluntary, non-didactic, and intrinsically interestingmanner. As Demerathnoted regardingthe use of feature films in stratification classes, "Most films are more faithful to sociology in establishing the context of their plot than in unravellingthe plot itself" (1982, p. 72). The wisdom of this remark is manifest. Yet, unless we see the film as a didactic reification, an exemplar of transparent concepts, the restriction of sociology to context entails no limitation. The film is, among other things, a work of art, the product of creative intention. Inasmuch as the artist's vision is informed by myth, ideology, or personal biograopens out into multiple dimenphy, interpretation sions. The task, accordingly, as hermeneutical:it involves interpretations subjectiveand objective of contexts of meaning. It is also interdisciplinary. Literarycriticism, psychoanalysis, cinematic his243

Teaching Sociology, 1986, Vol. 14 (October:243-248)

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:22:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

244

TEACHINGSOCIOLOGY materials,however, were devoted to the sociological perspective. The issues explored in printed materials and open discussion during 1982-83 included whether the society we are creating today-a society of impersonal organizations concerned with largely instrumentalgoals-does not necessarilyproducealienationand dehumanization (Citizen Kane, The Conversation); whether public roles in modern society provide meaning and purposein face of the pendingreality of death whethermoral (CitizenKane, Cries and Whispers); reason is not but the rationalization of social dominance (Mon Oncle d'Amerique);and whether the essence of social life is not but artifice and theatre (Grand Illusion, The Rules of the Game). Appendix A lists the films in the sequence in which they were shown. FORMAT
GROUPING FILMS BY SUBJECT

tory and a half dozen other disciplines all whose fulfillment is contributeto an interpretation an ever-receding ideal. Staking out the sociohistoricalcontext as the domain of the sociological imaginationis no deprivation. It is a pre-emption that must be earned through concrete cinematic analyses. The film Yol illustrates the way in which the sociological imaginationfacilitatesthe hermeneutic task. It is virtually impossible to interpret the characters' actionsandmotivations,the filmmaker's message, or the receptionthe film received without and some insight into the social structure historyof the filmmaker's home society: Turkey. The story concerns the experiences of four Turkishprisoners released for a week's furlough to visit their families. Each has been touched by modernvalues to some degree and each faces a conflict with the patriarchalfamily. Widow inheritance, adulterykilling, filial justice, a courtship ritual that demandsthe constantsurveillanceof chaperonesto prevent sexual contact, and the reclaiming of a man's wife and children by his father-in-law following the man's violation of the masculine code of honor are some of the customs that alternately implore and oppress them as they undertakethis "trek of life" (yol in Turkish).The weight of traditionis set against the secular ideals of the founderof moder Turkey, Ataturk,and the revolutionarystandpointof the filmmaker,Yilmaz Guney, who wrote and directed the film from prison and then escaped to edit the finished work. Ironically, the only revolutionarygroup in the film is the separatistKurds, who are the least touched by modernity. The filmmaker, a Kurd himself, is torn between the insurgency and the secularhumanist ideals of Ataturk and Marx. The clan loyalty thatis the social basis of Kurdishsolidarity, the confinement of women, and the male code of honor stifle the individual autonomy that a democratic, secular society requires. The prison, the centralmetaphorof the film, works on multiple levels. The hermeneutictask is to understandthe way the four story lines converge on a single theme, the images and symbols which capturethe filmmaker'svision (with all its contradictions),and the way the whole is bound to several contexts that remain cinematically implicit. The sociological imagination is essential for tying the action on screen to one of those contexts, the transitionfrom to patriarchal civil society. It is perhapsthe major context for interpretingthis particularfilm. But even here it is not exhaustive. A good film is richer than any single context. The films chosen for Cinema Sociology raised philosophical, moral, and psychological as well as sociological questions. Since discovering the sociological dimension did not exhaust the task of interpretation,no attempt was made to restrict audience discussion to set topicg or to introduce sociologicalconceptsas learningobjectives. Printed

The six films each year were arranged groupsof in threeby topic and shown on consecutive Fridaysin the fall and spring. This schedule lowered poster and booklet costs and maximized publicity, as the print media could justify a feature story on each quarter'stheme and film selection, as well as issue weekly notices for particular films. It also permitted a "dialectical" organization of films within a theme. For example, the Fall 1983 theme was "Estrangement Transcendence the New and in World." It began with a film set in the frontier (McCabeand Mrs. Miller), when the promise of a new beginningwas in full flower (as was evidence of the commodityrelation).The second film, set in the present(Gates of Heaven, a documentary about pet cemeteries), examinedthe hollowed-outwreckage of the American Dream after it had been completely commodified. (This hystericallyfunny film is perhaps the most penetratingdepiction of estrangement ever filmed.) Finally, the series concluded with My Dinner With Andre, a film about renewal and transcendence. The spring 1984 series had the exact same triadicstructure,with the potentiallymelodramatic Casablanca gaining thematic credibility as a film aboutrenewed moralcommitmentby its placement last in the series. The Chant of JimmieBlacksmith posited the promiseof a new world, while Stroszek depicted the modern waste-land through the eyes of three contemporary German immigrants to America. Stroszek, made in 1976, was something of a bicentennialgift, as well as powerful culture criticism. A closing scene has the hapless Stroszek runninginto a gaudy amusementparkon an Indian Reservationcarryinga frozen turkey!So much for the AmericanDream!
PRINTED MATERIAL

Upon enteringthe auditoriumviewers found a sixor seven-page brochure(two folded sheets of 8.5

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:22:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CINEMA SOCIOLOGY x 11 paper) describing the quarter's theme and giving the cast and credits, a plot outline, and a brief enumerationof the sociological themes found in the three films. The last was fairly cryptic and meant to focus reflection on ideas which often failed to get a hearingduringthe discussion period. During the third year a separatebrochurefor each film was distributed in place of the quarterly booklet. It was cheaper (photocopied, not typeset) and permitted a longer essay on the sociological aspects of the film. It also appeared to be more useful to viewers. The brochurewas fundamental to the series, as it established the sociological nexus of the interpretation, while sparing the audience the didactic inputs the sociologists might otherwise have felt compelled to make during the discussion period. Appendix B is part of a quarterly brochure on The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith. It shows how naturally the socioculturalcontext can be broughtto the task of film interpretation.

245 (1), Computer Science (1), Art (1) and Foreign Language (1).
REFRESHMENTS

The series was held on Friday evenings at 7:30, with three especially popularfilms shown again on Saturday, but without discussion. The entertainment value of this schedule is manifest;the use of refreshments contributed another dimension of satisfaction, as gifts of food normally do. Coffee, juice, cookies, and popcorn were served from 7:00. Early arrivalshad the opportunityto read the brochureand enjoy a snack while conversing with friends or the host. Although food provision was labor-intensive, it helped to create a responsive environment(and may have partiallycompensated for the frequent technical difficulties with the projectors).
AUDITORIUM

A cushioned, 142-seat tiered lecture room with an ROLE OF THE HOST enclosed projectionbooth, detached stereo speakers, and a large screen provided an almost ideal The project director also served as a host, setting for the series. Additional chairs could be welcoming the audience, explainingthe formatand broughtin from the hall for spillover crowds, a not giving informationabout upcoming films. He also uncommonoccurrence. Althoughfilmgoers recomintroducedthat evening's discussantand explained mended a larger room, the sense of intimacy why he or she was matched with that particular a smaller auditoriumwas worth the film. Usually some backgroundinformationabout engenderedby occasional crowding. the filmmaker's artistic inclinationswere provided as well. These opening comments served to reinforce the program'shumanistic intentions and MAILING LIST/QUESTIONNAIRE to preparethe audience to experience the film on Attendees were asked to evaluate the evening's its own (sometimes uncompromising)terms. film and discussion on a simple form that doubled as a sign-up sheet for the mailing list. Persons on the mailing list received a descriptionof the next ROLE OF THE DISCUSSANT season's films a week or so before the media The discussion period allowed the audience to announcement. The combination of gift exchange, sense of clarify or reflect on the themes and symbols just experienced. The discussant'sjob was to focus the sharedenterprise,social similarity(see below), and filmgoers' attention on a major dilemma, meta- intimate environs produced a remarkablydevelphor, or event in the film, thus setting an oped in-group feeling among the regular particiintellectual floor for the interaction. Discussants pants. This experience was one of the unexpected were expected to utilize disciplinary perspectives satisfactions of the program. One filmgoer was to this end, but also to react subjectively. moved to write an unsolicited "community Informalityand spontaneitywere encouraged. The comment" lauding the series in the local press. best discussants tried not to solve all the puzzles left by the filmmaker, only to explore one or two. That left the audience with a few questions to EVALUATION answer on its own. The discussants were not experts in cinematic technique or history; often The grantor required annual evaluations of the they were not even film buffs. The major criteria project, from which the following informationis for discussant selection were communicativeabil- abstracted.Recall that the goal of the project was ity and some natural linkage to the film. The to provide an occasion for adult community discussant'srole was limited to ten minutesand the residents to discuss issues of philosophical, whole discussion period to forty minutes. Besides sociological, and moral significance. The films Sociology, discussants were recruited from the provided the stimulus, the discussant the initial focused commentary, and the booklet an elaboraDepartmentsof English (3), Political Science (2), Communications(2), Philosophy (1), Mathematics tion of the sociological dimension of the interpre-

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:22:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

246

TEACHINGSOCIOLOGY

tation. Based on attendance and questionnaire rate (18.5 percent). Overall, approximatelythreereturns,it is safe to say that the programachieved fifths of those in attendancewere unconnectedto the University, allowing for under-reportingof its aims in a grand manner. studentand professorialstatuses.
ATTENDANCE

The original grant applicationestimated that 40 to 60 persons would attendeach presentation.In fact, the average attendanceper show was 110 the first year, twice the original estimate. Attendance increased another 65 percent the second year, to 137 per show, then levelled off at 131 per show the third year. Total attendance for three years was 2675. Undoubtedlythe series tappedan unmet need in the communityfor quality films and an intellectual environment in which to ponder them. In a community of 130,000, not one commercial theatre would risk showing the type of film in which we came to specialize. If Appendix A is examined carefully, it will show a shift in our film selection from the great classics to contemporary European and off-beat American offerings. We found our niche in the educated middle-class stratumof the community, among those of a more cosmopolitanbent, people who would occasionally drive to St. Louis or Louisville (about 130 miles) to see a well-reviewed import.
AUDIENCE

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Between 35 and 50 percent of the audience would remain for the discussion period after the show, a remarkablepercentage considering the late hour. The quality of discussion naturallyvaried with the film, the discussant, and group dynamics. On the whole, however, the quality and level of audience was much higher than anticipated. participation
PUBLICITY

If any factor contributed to the success of the project, it was publicity. From the beginning the series was the beneficiary of widespreadpublicity in both local newspapers, the student paper, and several radio stations. The project director was interviewed before each group of three films and weekly notices of the film's awards and accomplishments were common. Posters were placed in the usual places in malls and downtown and delivered to community organizations. Special invitationsto large organizations,such as hospitals and credit unions, often led to items in employee bulletins.
AUDIENCE EVALUATIONS

The questionnaireincluded an item on occupation. Based on the results of the first year returns(108 respondents), the filmgoers were teachers (19.5 percent), professionals (18.5 percent), students (18.5 percent), business people (12.0 percent), homemakers(11.0 percent), white collar workers (7.5 percent), college professors (5.5 percent), retired persons (6.5 percent), and blue collar workers (0.9 percent). This profile is not surprising, given the nature and location of the program. The original grant proposal targeted teachers as the main nonUniversity audience. The Evansville Teachers Association co-sponsored the series, announced each play date in its bulletin, and distributed posters in every school in Evansville. Teachersdid respond, but not in large numbers. During the second year, of 119 respondents, 25 (21 percent) identified themselves as teachers. CinemaSociology's formatcould be modified to appeal more to working class and minority populations. Film selection and viewing location might be changed and the literature written differently. A group of three films on work and class conflict, for example, could be organizedand the location changed to a union hall or church meeting room. Union co-sponsorship would be essential. The average age of our first year respondents was 39.9, reflecting the low student participation

Several questions attempted to find out how effectively we communicated the sociological imagination.In answer to the question, "Did your of understanding sociology improve as a result of the film and/or discussion?", of 73 responses, 46 answered "yes" (63 percent), 12 answered "no" (17 percent)and 15 answered"maybe a little" (20 percent). Anotherquestion asked, "Having stayed for the discussion, did your understandingof the film improve a lot / a little / not much?" Of 82 responses, 50 said "a lot" (61 percent), 27 said "a little" (33 percent)and only 5 said "not much" (6 percent). A third question asked, "Did the film promptyou to think about philosophical, moral or sociological questions?" Here 97.4 percent answered "yes," with only 2 of 76 responses indicating "no" or "not much." Many participants volunteeredthat a select film made a lasting impression. The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmithand El Norte elicited the most remarksof this kind. Despite these positive responses, it is difficult to know how successful we were in getting adult communityresidentsto think about their own lives in terms of the large-scale structuresand forces discussed in the series. In the controlled environment we created, I think we succeeded fairly well, Empathicidentificationwith fictional screen characters is one of those rare occasions in which we allow ourselves to try out alternativeego ideals.

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:22:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CINEMA SOCIOLOGY And where the social environment is clearly and responsiblefor the predicaments choices of the characters,there is no doubt that identificationcan promote sociological understanding. There is a scene in Yol where Seyit Ali leads his son and wife at night across the wind-swept, underdressed snow-covered mountainside. She had disgraced while him and her family by turningto prostitution he was in prison. "Be hard. Nurtureyour hatred," her fathertold him, sensing his irrevolve.Adulterykilling was not Seyit's right, but his duty. The trek was her execution. The final scene in this sequence, shot from a distance, shows Seyit Ali carryinghis unconscious, half-frozen wife on his back, while his son beats her with his belt, trying to keep her alive. It is an image of concentrated emotional power that only art can create. But it is also an image thatbears within itself the existential distance between tradition and modernity. To interpret such a scene without the sociological imagination would be to impoverish it. Cinema Sociology provided an occasion in which it was legitimate to express insights of this kind. How lasting an impact it made on audiences is unknown, but it surely made a difference.

247 for schools having that schedule, or the summer term. It is hoped, however, that interested departments would experiment first with the format. community-oriented While suggesting that other departmentsmight wish to seek outside support for film/discussion series, it is also necessary to advise that not every departmenthas the personnel to execute this kind of public event. Since film selection anddiscussant selection are the two most importantfunctions, followed by the host role and the booklet writing (all accomplishedby a single person ratherthan a have a group), it is imperativethat the department personwhose proclivitieslie in this direction. This was not the case at the University of Evansville after the original project director left. As a consequence,an Englishprofessorassumedresponsibility for the series starting the fourth year, retainingthe format,but inevitablydiminishingthe sociological aspect of the interpretation. In short, for the right departmentin the right setting (a liberal arts universityin a small city), a projectlike Cinema Sociology might prove to be a valuable addition to community life. It may help people understand what sociology and selfhave to do with one another. understanding

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION This paper presentedthe justification, format, and evaluationof a film/discussion series that successthe fully incorporated sociological imaginationin a humanities setting. The communicativeexchange was more spontaneousand democraticthan most interactions between academic faculty and the public, and far less ritualistic and deferential. It broughta large numberof benefits to the sociology faculty, including enhanced visibility, kudos from the University administration(which loved the publicity), a stronger linkage to the humanities faculty and mission, and the psychologicalrewards usually associated with making gifts to others. Although our enrollmentsand recruitmentof new majorsdid not improve, and the series did not help us retain an endangered position in sociology, these were not outcomes we could realistically expect to contravene.The projectexceeded its own modest goals and may be expected to have similar effects in like environments.The projectis now in its fifth year. The major obstacle to converting Cinema Sociology to classroomuse is film rentalcost. This could be offset by selecting older films or using video tapes. Nearly all the aesthetic advantagesof the large screen are lost in the latterstrategyand it cannotbe recommended.Fees imposedon students registeringfor the course would help recover some costs. But the best bet is to seek the aid of the DevelopmentOffice in obtainingoutside subsidies. Perhapsthe best time to offer a course like Cinema Sociology would be either the Januaryshort term, APPENDIX A: FilmTitlesandThemes* Fall 1982 Theme:The Alienation Self in Modem of Society
Citizen Kane (Orson Wells, 1942) The Conversation(FrancisFord Coppola, 1974) Cries and Whispers(IngmarBergman, 1972)

Spring1983 Theme:SocialRules

The Grand Illusion (Jean Renoir, 1937) The Rules of the Game (Jean Renoir, 1939) Mon Oncle d'Amerique(Alain Resnais, 1980)

and Fall 1983 Theme:Estrangement Transcendence in

the New World McCabe and Mrs. Miller (RobertAltman, 1971) Gates of Heaven (RobertAltman, 1971) My Dinner with Andre (Louis Malle, 1981)

Spring 1984 Theme: Rebellion, Pilgrimageand Sacrifice The Chantof JimmieBlacksmith(Fred Schepisi, 1978) Stroszek:A Ballad (WernerHerzog, 1978) Casablanca (Michael Curtis, 1942) Fall 1984 Theme: Ethnicityin Contemporary Society Yol (Yilmaz Guney, 1982) Chan is Missing (Wayne Wang, 1982) El Norte (JuanNava, 1983) Spring 1985 Theme: Women and Patriarchy Cin of Women(FedericoFellini, 1980) A Brief Vacation(Victorio DeSica, 1972) The Marriage of Maria Braun (Ranier Maria Fassbinder, 1978)

* The authorwill provide abstractsof these films upon request.

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:22:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

248
APPENDIX B: Booklet Materialfor The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith CREDITS Fred Schepisi Fred Schepisi Fred Schepisi, Thomas Keneally Ian Baker Cinematography: Brian Kavanagh Editor: Music: Bruce Smeaton Producer: Director: Screenplay: CAST Jimmie Blacksmith Tommy Lewis Mort FreddyReynolds Jack Thompson Rev. Neville ConstableFarrell Ray Barrett Gilda, Jimmie's wife Angela Punch PLOT OUTLINE The year is 1900 and Jimmie Blacksmith, a half-white Australian Aborigine raised by the Rev. and Mrs. Neville, is keen on proving himself as industriousas the lower class Scotch, English, and Irish immigrantswho spreadtheir farms across the lush landscapeof Jimmie's ancestors and who now debate the merits of a Constitution denying political and civil rights to the native Aborigines. Armedwith a letterof reference,Jimmiefinds work as a fence-builder for the farmer Healy, a tracker for the sadistic Constable Farrell, a sheep shearer, and finally again a fence-builder on the Newby farm. At each job Jimmie is either underpaid, insulted, or told to leave Mort and Uncle Tabidgi because his visiting half-brother threaten"to turn the place into a black's camp." Even after marrying a white woman, Jimmie finds himself excluded from the settlers' society, whose rules and values he masteredso well. When Mr. Newby humiliates him by withholding his wages and arrangingto place his pregnant wife as a servant in a distant town, Jimmie explodes. Yelling "I declarewar!," a phrasehe learnedat the sheep ranch, he retraceshis path, killing the families of those who abused him. Finally captured and awaiting execution, he is visited by Rev. Neville, who begins to wonder whether his culturalindoctrination Jimmie Blacksmithdid not of contributeto his violence. ANTHROPOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 1. Approximately300,000 Aborigines were living in some 500 tribes when the Britisharrivedto set up a penal colony in South Australia in 1788. By 1900 the native populationhad declined to 75,000. Most deaths were due to disease, alcoholism, military action and interAboriginalviolence, in that order. 2. The tribe Jimmie Blacksmith was initiated into exchangedgoods accordingto normsof reciprocitybased on kinship. Propertycirculated within the tribe. It was not accumulatedby individualsseeking to gain power or prestige over other individuals, as among the colonists. The tribesmanwas undera moralobligationto share. For
I For informationabout the colonization of Australia, see Aboriginal Australians: Black Response to White Dominance, 1788-1980 by Richard Broome. Sydney: George Allen & Unwinn, 1982, pp. 9-21.

TEACHING SOCIOLOGY JimmieBlacksmith,the normof reciprocitymeantthathe could never accumulatethe wealthhe needed to own land as long as he maintainedsocial relationswith his kin.2 3. The same norm of reciprocity applied to sexual relations:men offered theirwives to kinsmenas a form of hospitality. The Aboriginies also attempted to create relationshipsof obligation with the settlers by bringing them into the kinship system, that is, by offering their women as a sign of friendliness. The Europeans were expected to repay with food supportand to cease hostile actions. Instead, the whites treated the Aboriginal villages as brothels, paying for sexual favors with alcohol. SOCIOLOGICAL THEMES 1. CulturalDomination:The religious, legal, and caste norms of the colonizing group were imposed on the native populationby a combinationof force, indoctrination, and unequalexchange relations. The tribalsocieties not made extinct by encroachmentdisintegratedas the whites spurredoverturesof kinship and reciprocity. 2. Work/MobilityEthic: Frontiersocieties develop by exploiting abundant("free") naturalresources, converting them into marketablecommoditiesthroughpersistent hardwork. Mobility is won throughsevere restrictions on is personalconsumption,untilsufficientproperty amassed. The Australiansettlers, drawn from the poorest quarters of Anglo-Saxon society, were penuriousto the extreme. Not only did they pay Aborigines less than whites on caste grounds, but they felt justified in cheating them of their wages because they would only "squander" them on their kin. 3. RetributiveJustice: Jimmie Blacksmith's vengence has an "Old Testament"qualityaboutit that is foreign to Aboriginal society. As a half-caste, his "declarationof war" owed more to his Christian side than his Aboriginal. The objects of his violence also symbolized what he wanted most in white society: full rights of property,includingsexual propertypossessed exclusively by the male head of household. REFERENCES Demerath, Nicholas J. 1981. "Through a Double-CrossedEye: Sociology and the Movies." Teaching Sociology 9:69-82. DeFronzo, James. 1982. "A Film-AugmentedCourse in International Social Movements." TeachingSociology 9:169-188. Smith, Don D. 1973. "Teaching Introductory Sociology by Film." TeachingSociology 1:48-61. 1982. "Teaching Undergraduate Sociology Feature Films." TeachingSociology 10:98-101. through Christopher Prendergastteaches social theory, anthropology, and urban sociology at Illinois Wesleyan University. He organizedthe Cinema Sociology program while at the University of Evansville. His article, "Alfred Schutz and the AustrianSchool of Economics," appearedin The AmericanJournal of Sociology (August, to 1986). Addresscorrespondence Christopher Prendergast, Departmentof Sociology, Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, IL 61702.
2 I am endebted to Pauline Kael for the analysis of kinshipand reciprocityhere and below. See her review of The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith in The New Yorker, September15, 1980, pp. 148-158.

This content downloaded on Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:22:44 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions