The issue of race in contemporary America is extraordinarily complex, and far more difficult to describe than it has been in the past. This is characteristic of the “post-modern” era, where everything, race, gender, colonization, etc. is in some sort of ambiguous “post” stage. Our “post” world is hard to define because it seems (to me, at least) to be in the midst of an ongoing transition and restructuring of the world order in which traditional structures have been challenged, but continue to form the underlying base of our values, making our culture a battleground for old and new ideologies.
In the past, when open discrimination and segregation was considered the norm and racist principles were written into law, it was much easier to point out what exactly was the racial ideology of the time and what specifically was wrong and needed to be changed. Now that overt racism is no longer considered appropriate and the notion of equality is embedded in our laws, it becomes far more challenging to describe the current state of race in our society.
Because of its implicitness, modern racist discourse is more insidious than before. One can make a racist comment without actually mentioning race, disguise it as a criticism of “un-American values,” and claim to be an ardent supporter of equality, making any accusations of racism easy to refute. This was clearly demonstrated by the clip we watched on Wednesday where Andrew Breitbart tried to defend Rush Limbaugh because he supports Clarence Thomas, and took offense at Limbaugh being called racist. Breitbart’s statements are perfect examples of two aspects of Reagan-era racial discourse that Gray discusses in the following quotes:
“People such as former head of the US Commission on Civil Rights Clarence Pendleton or US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas were seen by conservatives as possessing the requisite moral character, individual responsibility, and personal determination to succeed in spite of residual social impediments. These were the kinds of “moral minorities” that neo-conservatives celebrated and presented both to counter the dependence of the underclass and to affirm their commitment to racial equality. These African Americans were just like whites, loyal to the ethos of capitalism and bourgeois individualism, an that loyalty rewarded them with the same middle-class privileges as whites (19).”
“Resurrecting the nativist language of reverse discrimination, traditional values, and anti-immigration, whiteness in the discourse of Reaganism no longer operated as a sign of victimizer but was repositioned as a sign of victim (17).”
The first quote addresses the notion that by supporting individual African Americans who are essentially the prototypes of “ideal minorities” who fully adopt white values, one can claim this as evidence of his/her tolerance and colorblindness and then safely continue making racist comments about the rest of the Black community. This is exactly what Breitbart does when he “proves” that Rush Limbaugh is not racist simply because he has voiced support for a single (very conservative) Black person.
The next quote explains how Reaganism framed certain policies and societal problems to position white people as the victims of Black people, feminists, basically anyone who demanded equality during the civil rights movement, and poor people. Breitbart appeals to this absurd logic when he “finds it offensive” when Bill Maher states that Rush Limbaugh is racist. He says that there “is nothing in this country that is a worse accusation” because the person being called racist is burdened to “disprove that,” therefore calling someone a racist “is un-American.” Now it is poor Rush Limbaugh who is a victim of evil “Black-studies intelligentsia” whose aim is to wrongly accuse people of the most grievous sin in America and force them to prove their innocence. Reaganism made it possible for middle and upper class white men to routinely announce that they are the victims of inequality, racism, and sexism.
My own experiences with race, and gender and sexuality, for that matter, are indicative of the influence of the Reagan-era backlash. I am embarrassed to admit that from the age of 12-18 I was basically a mouthpiece for conservative social perspectives. The fact that I adopted these viewpoints is especially mystifying because I grew up in an extremely liberal household, without a television, and went to progressive Seattle public schools.
I was ardently anti-feminist, and would make such idiotic comments as, “a woman’s place is in the kitchen!” (at which point my mother considered disowning me). I would also make the following racist argument about various groups: “It’s not the race I have a problem with, it’s the culture!” meaning, basically, that I had no problem with someone’s actual skin color, but with everything that it stood for. I firmly believed the idea of reverse discrimination and felt victimized by political correctness.
In college I started to reconsider my opinions, and when I took a Women’s Studies class my old worldview was completely shattered and replaced with an understanding of the realities of race, gender, class, sexuality, etc. The more I study media, ideology, and culture the better I understand where my previous attitudes stemmed from, that they weren’t just me being my typical stubborn self and rebelling against the values of my parents and teachers, but that they were in fact influenced by much greater social forces. My own experiences illustrate just how pervasive Reaganism, post-feminism, neo-conservatism, and similar cultural movements are. I was, for the most part, not exposed to television and mainstream media, and my mother fervently tried to raise me in a gender-neutral manner (to which, in my childhood, I responded by insisting on wearing frilly pink dresses—even when we went hiking—playing with Barbie dolls, and aspiring to be a princess). Yet I was powerfully influenced, much more so than most of my friends, by the conservative discourse circulating through contemporary media and culture.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Sexist in the City
“Shugart, Waggoner, and Hallstein present a coherent and compelling explanation of why the third-wave feminist theory that originated in thoughtful academic discussions quickly became something else entirely. They suggest that “certain tenets of third-wave feminism are appropriated, commodified, reinscribed, and ‘sold back’ to audiences . . . in such a way that those feminist sensibilities are not only defused but ultimately rendered consonant with the dominant paradigm that they appear to resist—thus, the ultimate function of these mass-mediated representations of third-wave feminism is hegemonic.”23 As with popular appropriation of other oppositional discourses such as hip-hop music or grunge clothing, the media turned a critique into a commodity. Because the reach of popular media far exceeds that of academic discourse, the appropriated image helped define the theory in the cultural imagination. Moreover, in current popular and academic discussions of third-wave feminism, the appropriated image often is conflated with the original academic critique so that it is impossible to delineate between “authentic” third-wave feminisms and simple marketing ploys (p.7).”
This quote reveals the problem of the mass media’s appropriation of certain feminist concepts, such as equal job opportunities, and how this essentially caused the feminist movement to lose validity and oppositional power. Now select feminist ideals are simply used to sell products or values. Advertisements, films, television shows, celebrities, and political figures stridently tout their ‘enlightened’ attitudes toward women, chanting “Girl Power” slogans wherever possible and presenting a few token women in ‘strong’ roles. This usually involves conspicuous emphases on women’s athletic and intellectual abilities, and sexual ‘liberation’ (i.e. promiscuity or willingness to engage in any kind of sexual act at the beck and call of a man), as evidenced by Sex and the City, for instance. Furthermore, it persistently presents an image of a successful, ‘empowered’ woman, who is wealthy, white, attractive (within a very specific and narrow framework of beauty), and a CONSUMER! What a brilliant marketing ploy: frame “strong woman” as “shopping woman”!
Many young women would call Sex in the City a feminist show, and would certainly describe Miranda, Charlotte, Samantha, and Carrie as strong and independent. In fact, I was having an argument with my friend about this a few weeks ago. To me, these women absolutely do not epitomize female empowerment. I find it positively alarming that people are so quick to praise this show as feminist! If this is feminism, if Miranda, Charlotte, Samantha, and Carrie are the models of female achievement and strength, if that’s as good as it gets, then I feel doomed. The four of them shape their lives entirely around men! They spend their days chasing men, talking about men, writing about men, obsessing over men. The single goal that unites them is meeting men and getting married. Oh, and shopping, of course. One would think that four smart, successful, wealthy, single women would have something else to occupy their thoughts with, at least occasionally. I understand the drive to have a romantic relationship and to find a partner, but that is not the only purpose of life! Honestly, watching Carrie prance girlishly about in a tutu, agonizing over relationships, and dreaming of her perfect wedding makes me nauseous. Yet this show gained widespread recognition as being ‘feminist,’ thus inviting the respect and admiration of young women around the country. I find Sex in the City to be demeaning and limiting. I interpret the message to be: “Sure, you now have equal rights as a woman, so go have a career (and make sure to indulge in material goods)! Have sex! Experience independence! But ultimately you’ll realize how much that sucks and how you truly aspire to become a wife.” This often seems to be the message in films or television. Empowerment and a successful career for a female character often comes at the expense of having a fulfilling personal and romantic life, which can only be achieved if the woman compromises some of her independence and accepts the self-sacrificing, nurturing roles of wife and mother.
The Sex in the City women fit into this discordant media portrayal of women as ‘empowered,’ but still within the traditional frameworks of femininity. For instance, a woman may be the CEO of a company, yet she still embodies nurturing and motherly characteristics (like Adelle DeWitt in Dollhouse). Or else she is a callous bitch, of course. Also, often when a woman is cast in a traditionally male-dominated position as a doctor or detective, she nonetheless defers to a male leader in the same position, rather than demonstrate autonomous leadership. Furthermore, the consistent sexualization of women, and the complete dominance of female roles by thin, beautiful women, regardless of whether they are playing a lawyer or a stripper, signifies that a woman’s main source of power comes from her appearance and sexual self, rather than pure intellect.
The media’s subtle underlying genderization of women is perhaps more insidious than the more explicit sexism of the past because it masquerades under the guise of female ‘empowerment’ and ‘equality’, making it much harder for non-critical audiences to discern. They can proudly boast that they are progressive because they portray women doing things other than vacuuming and making pot roasts. The media appears to take for granted women’s enfranchisement on a superficial and material level, however subtextual gender roles, stereotypes, and sexist imagery continue to permeate its representation of women and systematically reinforce gender biases.
This quote reveals the problem of the mass media’s appropriation of certain feminist concepts, such as equal job opportunities, and how this essentially caused the feminist movement to lose validity and oppositional power. Now select feminist ideals are simply used to sell products or values. Advertisements, films, television shows, celebrities, and political figures stridently tout their ‘enlightened’ attitudes toward women, chanting “Girl Power” slogans wherever possible and presenting a few token women in ‘strong’ roles. This usually involves conspicuous emphases on women’s athletic and intellectual abilities, and sexual ‘liberation’ (i.e. promiscuity or willingness to engage in any kind of sexual act at the beck and call of a man), as evidenced by Sex and the City, for instance. Furthermore, it persistently presents an image of a successful, ‘empowered’ woman, who is wealthy, white, attractive (within a very specific and narrow framework of beauty), and a CONSUMER! What a brilliant marketing ploy: frame “strong woman” as “shopping woman”!
Many young women would call Sex in the City a feminist show, and would certainly describe Miranda, Charlotte, Samantha, and Carrie as strong and independent. In fact, I was having an argument with my friend about this a few weeks ago. To me, these women absolutely do not epitomize female empowerment. I find it positively alarming that people are so quick to praise this show as feminist! If this is feminism, if Miranda, Charlotte, Samantha, and Carrie are the models of female achievement and strength, if that’s as good as it gets, then I feel doomed. The four of them shape their lives entirely around men! They spend their days chasing men, talking about men, writing about men, obsessing over men. The single goal that unites them is meeting men and getting married. Oh, and shopping, of course. One would think that four smart, successful, wealthy, single women would have something else to occupy their thoughts with, at least occasionally. I understand the drive to have a romantic relationship and to find a partner, but that is not the only purpose of life! Honestly, watching Carrie prance girlishly about in a tutu, agonizing over relationships, and dreaming of her perfect wedding makes me nauseous. Yet this show gained widespread recognition as being ‘feminist,’ thus inviting the respect and admiration of young women around the country. I find Sex in the City to be demeaning and limiting. I interpret the message to be: “Sure, you now have equal rights as a woman, so go have a career (and make sure to indulge in material goods)! Have sex! Experience independence! But ultimately you’ll realize how much that sucks and how you truly aspire to become a wife.” This often seems to be the message in films or television. Empowerment and a successful career for a female character often comes at the expense of having a fulfilling personal and romantic life, which can only be achieved if the woman compromises some of her independence and accepts the self-sacrificing, nurturing roles of wife and mother.
The Sex in the City women fit into this discordant media portrayal of women as ‘empowered,’ but still within the traditional frameworks of femininity. For instance, a woman may be the CEO of a company, yet she still embodies nurturing and motherly characteristics (like Adelle DeWitt in Dollhouse). Or else she is a callous bitch, of course. Also, often when a woman is cast in a traditionally male-dominated position as a doctor or detective, she nonetheless defers to a male leader in the same position, rather than demonstrate autonomous leadership. Furthermore, the consistent sexualization of women, and the complete dominance of female roles by thin, beautiful women, regardless of whether they are playing a lawyer or a stripper, signifies that a woman’s main source of power comes from her appearance and sexual self, rather than pure intellect.
The media’s subtle underlying genderization of women is perhaps more insidious than the more explicit sexism of the past because it masquerades under the guise of female ‘empowerment’ and ‘equality’, making it much harder for non-critical audiences to discern. They can proudly boast that they are progressive because they portray women doing things other than vacuuming and making pot roasts. The media appears to take for granted women’s enfranchisement on a superficial and material level, however subtextual gender roles, stereotypes, and sexist imagery continue to permeate its representation of women and systematically reinforce gender biases.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Class, Wife Swap, and Desperate Housewives
"…Wife Swap does not ultimately support the idea of mobility as an ideal or goal. Instead, Wife Swap’s predictable narrative pattern always offers reassurance about the stable nature of class positioning, emphasizing the desirability of stasis over mobility. At the end of each episode, the families inevitably express that the Wife Swap experience has enabled them to gain a new appreciation of their lives and each other, always coming to the conclusion that life is not greener on the other side…Therefore, while Wife Swap deploys a narrative of self-improvement, it does so in a way that does not disrupt established social hierarchies. The series depicts a process in which the participants are able to experience a sense of class mobility, but always appears to reaffirm their current class positioning." (Matheson, p. 10)
This quote summarizes the concept of hegemony and the way in which the media reaffirm the status quo. Matheson describes how Wife Swap is structured toward a tidy conclusion that keeps everyone in her and his ‘place.’ In most episodes the families, though they make some compromises, ‘learn’ that they belong in their respective social locations, that they would be unhappy in a different class, and that this is an individual choice. The moral for the vicariously participating audience is that they should be content with their social locations because that is where they are ‘meant’ to be—they would not fit in elsewhere. It cements this conviction by creating an illusion that people have a choice in the matter, and that there are no outside forces that are keeping them where they are. A crucial aspect of hegemony is that the oppressed participate in their own oppression and accept the ideologies that perpetuate the oppression. Wife Swap shows each family reassuming and praising their social standing, even if they are in a disadvantaged class, and doing so entirely of their own accord. Harmony is restored as everyone revels in the restoration of the proper social order.
I have lately been on a Desperate Housewives kick (the earlier seasons—the last few are just too outlandish) and the topic of class has been very pertinent to this show. Desperate Housewives is the prototype of a TV series that portrays a bunch of wealthy white (mostly) suburbanites living effortless, struggle-free lives that most of us could only dream of. Certainly Wisteria Lane has no shortage of drama, and there are even references to the occasional financial concern, but these problems are short-lived, and their only consequences: one less trip to the spa, or a cheaper set of golf clubs—the kids still go to prestigious private schools and expensive hospital bills pose no problem. Meanwhile the lawns are meticulous, the clothes are pricey, and the women wearing them are fit, beautiful, and healthy. Amidst all the murders, betrayals, and weather catastrophes, a hair appointment is obviously never missed.
The show also paints a clear distinction between the upper/upper-middle class residents of Wisteria Lane and the people who serve them. Unless they fulfill some ulterior need, sexual, for instance, for the wealthy suburbanites, people in the service industry are not presented as individual personalities, often to the extent that they are partially cut out of the screen. The upper class is politely dismissive of the people who keep them afloat, rude even, in Gaby’s case, because all those interchangeable maids, bellboys, waiters, and valets are clearly not worthy of individual acknowledgment.
This quote summarizes the concept of hegemony and the way in which the media reaffirm the status quo. Matheson describes how Wife Swap is structured toward a tidy conclusion that keeps everyone in her and his ‘place.’ In most episodes the families, though they make some compromises, ‘learn’ that they belong in their respective social locations, that they would be unhappy in a different class, and that this is an individual choice. The moral for the vicariously participating audience is that they should be content with their social locations because that is where they are ‘meant’ to be—they would not fit in elsewhere. It cements this conviction by creating an illusion that people have a choice in the matter, and that there are no outside forces that are keeping them where they are. A crucial aspect of hegemony is that the oppressed participate in their own oppression and accept the ideologies that perpetuate the oppression. Wife Swap shows each family reassuming and praising their social standing, even if they are in a disadvantaged class, and doing so entirely of their own accord. Harmony is restored as everyone revels in the restoration of the proper social order.
I have lately been on a Desperate Housewives kick (the earlier seasons—the last few are just too outlandish) and the topic of class has been very pertinent to this show. Desperate Housewives is the prototype of a TV series that portrays a bunch of wealthy white (mostly) suburbanites living effortless, struggle-free lives that most of us could only dream of. Certainly Wisteria Lane has no shortage of drama, and there are even references to the occasional financial concern, but these problems are short-lived, and their only consequences: one less trip to the spa, or a cheaper set of golf clubs—the kids still go to prestigious private schools and expensive hospital bills pose no problem. Meanwhile the lawns are meticulous, the clothes are pricey, and the women wearing them are fit, beautiful, and healthy. Amidst all the murders, betrayals, and weather catastrophes, a hair appointment is obviously never missed.
The show also paints a clear distinction between the upper/upper-middle class residents of Wisteria Lane and the people who serve them. Unless they fulfill some ulterior need, sexual, for instance, for the wealthy suburbanites, people in the service industry are not presented as individual personalities, often to the extent that they are partially cut out of the screen. The upper class is politely dismissive of the people who keep them afloat, rude even, in Gaby’s case, because all those interchangeable maids, bellboys, waiters, and valets are clearly not worthy of individual acknowledgment.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Disclaimer
This is an individual weblog, and all data and information provided on this site and related sites is for informational purposes only and represents the opinion of the owner. I make no claims as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis and in no way represents the interests or positions of the University of Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)