Debord’s idea of the spectacle as a means of maintaining the status quo can be applied to Africa (or Haiti) and the way in which aid agencies and media persistently portray the continent as chaotic and impoverished in order to advance their own interests and those of Western governments. These images sell the message that teary-eyed African children desperately need to be “saved by wealthy Americans and that Africans are incapable of developing functional societies without Western meddling. To most Americans, “Africa” means famine, AIDS, illiteracy, genocide, soldiers, colorful “natives,” and elephants; we don’t even conceive of an Africa that includes businessmen, philosophers, orchestras, and skyscrapers. When I was about ten, I was shocked to discover that the African continent actually has electricity, big cities, and universities—magazines and television had only shown me skeletal Ethiopians in the desert and water buffalo stampeding through the safari. Recently, when I told a friend I would be going to Namibia (one of the most stable countries in Africa), she exclaimed in horror, “Oh my god! You’ll get machete-d! You’ll get AIDS!!”
In reality, most Africans are not starving or getting raped, and are living ordinary lives in towns and cities free of lions. Yet even when one knows that the entire continent of Africa is not a pit of despair, it is hard to shake the immediate thought: “Oh…Africa…” This is because the American public is relentlessly bombarded with the same tragic, decontextualized images of Africa, with no background information, no positive stories about progress and innovation, and no insight about the West’s contribution to many of the problems that do exist in Africa.
Not only does the sensational coverage of African wars, disease, and starvation fuel the non-profit sector, but it also functions to maintain hegemonic assumptions about race. When combined with the media narratives about African-Americans, and Haitians, these images encode blackness as “poverty and violence” and create a sense that black people are somewhat less human than white people by only showing chaos and suffering among masses of people, rather than including a personalized voice of an individual who is actually experiencing the situation. Gotham discusses the media’s role in reinforcing racial prejudice in the following paragraph:
“I want to suggest that race and class can also be viewed as spectacles, power-laden media productions and performances that embrace strategies of ephemerality, discontinuity, and fragmentation in the delivery of information. In general, the way the major news media framed their coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath reinforced an overwhelmingly negative view of New Orleans as a city of rampant crime, intense poverty, racial tension, and other pathologies.”
The American public is constantly fed images of black “dysfunction,” which is presented in a way that focuses on individual responsibility and ignores the structural inequalities that create and sustain racialized poverty and crime. As Gotham states, in covering Katrina “Little media attention was given to the long-term effects of government retrenchment and cutbacks in weakening the public infrastructure of disaster-prevention and disaster-relief policy.” The same can be said about Africa. The media tell us nothing about the role of Reagan/Thatcher neo-liberal economic policies in producing much of the poverty and insecurity in contemporary Africa, and instead frame the problems as though they are simply a result of Africans’ “hopeless inefficiency” and genocidal dictators. Africa is turned into a spectacle of horrific suffering or wondrous exotica: starvation, rape, ethnic cleansing, sensational landscapes, abundant wildlife, and people with unusual piercings. It is also part of the world that is persistently referred to as “third-world” or “developing—terms that barely conceal white supremacist ideology, and justify the need for American and European efforts to “develop” the continent.
Altogether, the media uses spectacles of urban crime, natural disasters, and extreme poverty among Africans, African-Americans, Haitians, etc. to reinforce notions of black inferiority and distract from the reality of systemic, structural racism that is the root of these problems.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Defining motherhood
In media and politics motherhood is a popular topic of debate, encouragement, or criticism. One frequently hears and reads critiques of various women’s parenting practices. It is a matter of intense public fascination, to the extent that numerous television shows are devoted to housewives and mothers, and people seem to take a self-righteous pleasure in crucifying women who veer off the “perfect mommy” path. Rarely, if ever, do we see articles or TV shows about “bad” fathers or “bad” husbands. I see this as part of the backlash against feminism and the progress made for women in the last century, because the discourse of motherhood relegates women to the domestic sphere and often labels the women who take advantage of their new rights in the workforce as “bad” mothers. However, in “Will the real mother please stand up?” Collins points out that the obsession with motherhood is more than just a frantic response to the expanding role of women in contemporary society. She also explains how these ideals are actually embedded in American laws as a means of biologically maintaining the majority of the white race in the US. This is summed up in the following quote:
“In the politicized climate of late-twentieth-century America, the issue of which women are “real” mothers best oriented for the task of reproducing both the American population and the alleged values of the US nation-state takes on added importance…Within this intellectual framework, women deemed fit to be “real” mothers encounter state supported family-planning options that support their contributions as mothers to traditional well-being. In contrast, those deemed unfit to be “real” mothers experience reproductive policies that are markedly different” (Collins, p.1).
The state seeks to regulate female reproduction as a means of controlling American population demographics. The ideal American citizen fits a very specific description, and the state enacts policies that encourage and support the production of perfect citizens, while discouraging and obstructing the production of undesirables. The female body becomes the vehicle through which certain groups are created or destroyed. Although it is not overtly stated, our laws perpetuate the goals of white supremacist eugenics. However, as evidenced by the frequent articles deploring overpopulation in “developing” (read “non-white”) nations, while lamenting low population growth in Europe and among white Americans, the discourse of eugenics is not exactly concealed. There is a palpable sense of panic among white societies about the decline of white populations because this means that the long history of white supremacy is coming to an end.
The state’s involvement in women’s reproductive health and the public discussion of the female body dehumanizes women and assigns outside agencies the power over intimate aspects of women’s lives. It disturbs me that my reproductive choices are a valid conversational topic and that simply because I am a woman, I am automatically perceived as a potential mother. I resent the assumption that I want to have children, and the horror or dismissal I am subject to when I state that I do not want to be a mother.
“In the politicized climate of late-twentieth-century America, the issue of which women are “real” mothers best oriented for the task of reproducing both the American population and the alleged values of the US nation-state takes on added importance…Within this intellectual framework, women deemed fit to be “real” mothers encounter state supported family-planning options that support their contributions as mothers to traditional well-being. In contrast, those deemed unfit to be “real” mothers experience reproductive policies that are markedly different” (Collins, p.1).
The state seeks to regulate female reproduction as a means of controlling American population demographics. The ideal American citizen fits a very specific description, and the state enacts policies that encourage and support the production of perfect citizens, while discouraging and obstructing the production of undesirables. The female body becomes the vehicle through which certain groups are created or destroyed. Although it is not overtly stated, our laws perpetuate the goals of white supremacist eugenics. However, as evidenced by the frequent articles deploring overpopulation in “developing” (read “non-white”) nations, while lamenting low population growth in Europe and among white Americans, the discourse of eugenics is not exactly concealed. There is a palpable sense of panic among white societies about the decline of white populations because this means that the long history of white supremacy is coming to an end.
The state’s involvement in women’s reproductive health and the public discussion of the female body dehumanizes women and assigns outside agencies the power over intimate aspects of women’s lives. It disturbs me that my reproductive choices are a valid conversational topic and that simply because I am a woman, I am automatically perceived as a potential mother. I resent the assumption that I want to have children, and the horror or dismissal I am subject to when I state that I do not want to be a mother.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Does it matter if it's not real?
“Yet discussions of modernization demonstrate a certain inconsistency, particularly when addressing issues of race and politics. Jackson echoes Tolkien loyalists when he asserts that it is "inappropriate" to apply modern political thinking to a fifty-year-old story ("J. R. R. Tolkien"). But he uses Nuremburg as a reference for the army shot at Isengard in Two Towers because "that sort of imagery is so potent"; such historical references, he continues, effectively "press buttons in people" ("Audio," Two Towers)… Jackson and many others have also pointed out the Ring's affinity with technology and Tolkien's anti-industry, proecology stances ("J. R. R. Tolkien"). If such references are so potent, regardless of strict historical connections, then why are modern race and gender issues—"modern" in the sense of the last two centuries—irrelevant?”
In this quote Kim challenges the prevailing idea that race and gender considerations need not apply to contemporary media that reference fantasy, especially historically-influenced fantasy. It is interesting that filmmakers choose to add a “modern” twist to some aspects of fantasy films, which are made with the benefit of modern technology, while refusing to incorporate progressive attitudes toward race and gender. Simply dismissing these films as “not real” does not justify their use of archaic ideologies. Although the films are not based in reality, the human emotions and interactions that drive the characters are very real. Furthermore, the fantasy genre does inform actual human thought and behavior, despite its imaginative characteristics. In fact, ideology operates through cultural constructs and myths, not realities, to create “common sense” value judgments, so just because something is not “real” doesn’t mean it has no impact on real human experiences.
However I don’t know that it is appropriate to ascribe racism to the equation of black with evil and white with good. I understand how that can potentially influence perceptions of race, but it seems so much a part of Western culture that I cannot imagine how it could be eliminated. Is the perception of dark/black as evil not simply an innocent product of the fear we associate with night? On the other hand, I do find it extremely problematic when dark people are cast as evil characters in films, and I consider it imperative for filmmakers to acknowledge modern race politics even in historical fantasy.
On a completely different note, I wanted to briefly address the pervasiveness of primitivism in the environmental movement (as evidenced by the “crying Indian” commercial we saw in class). The paradox of romanticism lingers on and manifests itself in modern environmental discourse: Environmentalists (read white and wealthy) glorify a “simpler” lifestyle that lacks the complexity of industrialization and nostalgically recall the “harmonious” relationship between “savages” and nature, yet they dictate the solutions to climate change, pollution, etc. and criticize many of the environmental practices that these same “primitive” peoples employ (such as “slash and burn” farming). Despite its ostensibly liberal roots, the environmental movement simply uses a new language to perpetuate the same old colonialist b.s.
In this quote Kim challenges the prevailing idea that race and gender considerations need not apply to contemporary media that reference fantasy, especially historically-influenced fantasy. It is interesting that filmmakers choose to add a “modern” twist to some aspects of fantasy films, which are made with the benefit of modern technology, while refusing to incorporate progressive attitudes toward race and gender. Simply dismissing these films as “not real” does not justify their use of archaic ideologies. Although the films are not based in reality, the human emotions and interactions that drive the characters are very real. Furthermore, the fantasy genre does inform actual human thought and behavior, despite its imaginative characteristics. In fact, ideology operates through cultural constructs and myths, not realities, to create “common sense” value judgments, so just because something is not “real” doesn’t mean it has no impact on real human experiences.
However I don’t know that it is appropriate to ascribe racism to the equation of black with evil and white with good. I understand how that can potentially influence perceptions of race, but it seems so much a part of Western culture that I cannot imagine how it could be eliminated. Is the perception of dark/black as evil not simply an innocent product of the fear we associate with night? On the other hand, I do find it extremely problematic when dark people are cast as evil characters in films, and I consider it imperative for filmmakers to acknowledge modern race politics even in historical fantasy.
On a completely different note, I wanted to briefly address the pervasiveness of primitivism in the environmental movement (as evidenced by the “crying Indian” commercial we saw in class). The paradox of romanticism lingers on and manifests itself in modern environmental discourse: Environmentalists (read white and wealthy) glorify a “simpler” lifestyle that lacks the complexity of industrialization and nostalgically recall the “harmonious” relationship between “savages” and nature, yet they dictate the solutions to climate change, pollution, etc. and criticize many of the environmental practices that these same “primitive” peoples employ (such as “slash and burn” farming). Despite its ostensibly liberal roots, the environmental movement simply uses a new language to perpetuate the same old colonialist b.s.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Eating the blue people
Sitting in class this week, feeling like an idiot in my moccasins, I cringingly realized how guilty I am of “eating the Other”. As bell hooks points out, I do it with a sense of pluralism and progress, and, ultimately, out of a desire to differentiate myself or add some ‘spice’ to my bland white façade. It comes from a need to disassociate myself from that which whiteness represents to me: racism, patriarchy, exploitation, republicans, consumption. But in an attempt to be “disloyal to western civilization” (p.5) I unknowingly reinforce it by consuming pieces of cultures that I don’t belong to.
hooks is astute in her observation that “white youth” are undergoing an “identity crisis” (p 4). This longing for some kind of cultural identity and community, and an effort to distance themselves from general white culture is apparent in (typically liberal) white young people. They cling to whatever semblance of ‘ethnic-ness’ they have in their genes, even if it’s just being a quarter Irish, at least it’s something. There is a particular desire to be part of a group that has been oppressed or persecuted. For instance, I have always been baffled and amused by the fact that, upon discovering that I’m Jewish, so many people tell me they “wish they were Jewish!” (Notably, this has stopped happening since Israel was portrayed as a bully in the latest Israeli-Palestine conflict). But why on earth would people want to be Jewish? Do they really want nagging, neurotic parents and a hypochondriac grandmother? (Ok, in my case, these stereotypes totally apply). People seize any connection to past victimization that they can use to shield themselves from guilt and separate themselves from the sordid history of European colonization – “I’m an eighth Cherokee, so I understand the suffering.” Admittedly, I’ve waved the Holocaust around a few times myself, so I’ve certainly succumbed to the temptation to claim an alibi. But how do you deal with the guilt of being the oppressor while continuing to benefit from the privileges that come with the package?
So, to completely change the subject, I saw Avatar this weekend, and came out spewing criticisms and saying “problematic” every other word, until my brother called me “esoteric and elitist.” To me this film epitomizes what hooks describes as “imperialist nostalgia.” The following quote applies perfectly to Avatar:
“In mass culture, imperialist nostalgia establishes a contemporary narrative where the suffering imposed by structures of domination on those designated Other is deflected by an emphasis on seduction and longing where the desire is not to make the Other over in one’s image but to become the Other” (p. 4)
I am sure that the parallels between Avatar and Pocahontas (and especially the animated film, Atlantis) were apparent to most people. Not only was the story essentially the same, but the recycling of romanticized myths about American Indians was blatantly obvious. This film works to assuage white guilt because it allows a, presumably, mostly white audience to vicariously participate in a rewrite of history, a nostalgic fantasy where, instead of destroying, we become “one with nature” and adopt a simple, harmonious, primitive lifestyle. Yet this fantasy is so pleasurable only because it maintains white patriarchal supremacy. The hero, a masculine white marine, ultimately saves the day by becoming the chief of the primitive aborigines. Although he does literally “become the Other” by taking on a new body, he is still a white man controlling a non-white population, who could not have survived without his paternal white wisdom. In the process, of course, he “claims the body of the colored Other (the chief’s daughter, naturally)…a symbolic frontier that will be fertile ground for [his] reconstruction of the masculine norm for asserting [himself] as [a] transgressive desiring object.” Thus, the “natural” order is reasserted – the white man dominates the blue people and “owns” the woman, even while superficially appearing to undermine white imperialism.
Could this film have been made with a black man as the hero, or, even less likely, a woman? I think not.
hooks is astute in her observation that “white youth” are undergoing an “identity crisis” (p 4). This longing for some kind of cultural identity and community, and an effort to distance themselves from general white culture is apparent in (typically liberal) white young people. They cling to whatever semblance of ‘ethnic-ness’ they have in their genes, even if it’s just being a quarter Irish, at least it’s something. There is a particular desire to be part of a group that has been oppressed or persecuted. For instance, I have always been baffled and amused by the fact that, upon discovering that I’m Jewish, so many people tell me they “wish they were Jewish!” (Notably, this has stopped happening since Israel was portrayed as a bully in the latest Israeli-Palestine conflict). But why on earth would people want to be Jewish? Do they really want nagging, neurotic parents and a hypochondriac grandmother? (Ok, in my case, these stereotypes totally apply). People seize any connection to past victimization that they can use to shield themselves from guilt and separate themselves from the sordid history of European colonization – “I’m an eighth Cherokee, so I understand the suffering.” Admittedly, I’ve waved the Holocaust around a few times myself, so I’ve certainly succumbed to the temptation to claim an alibi. But how do you deal with the guilt of being the oppressor while continuing to benefit from the privileges that come with the package?
So, to completely change the subject, I saw Avatar this weekend, and came out spewing criticisms and saying “problematic” every other word, until my brother called me “esoteric and elitist.” To me this film epitomizes what hooks describes as “imperialist nostalgia.” The following quote applies perfectly to Avatar:
“In mass culture, imperialist nostalgia establishes a contemporary narrative where the suffering imposed by structures of domination on those designated Other is deflected by an emphasis on seduction and longing where the desire is not to make the Other over in one’s image but to become the Other” (p. 4)
I am sure that the parallels between Avatar and Pocahontas (and especially the animated film, Atlantis) were apparent to most people. Not only was the story essentially the same, but the recycling of romanticized myths about American Indians was blatantly obvious. This film works to assuage white guilt because it allows a, presumably, mostly white audience to vicariously participate in a rewrite of history, a nostalgic fantasy where, instead of destroying, we become “one with nature” and adopt a simple, harmonious, primitive lifestyle. Yet this fantasy is so pleasurable only because it maintains white patriarchal supremacy. The hero, a masculine white marine, ultimately saves the day by becoming the chief of the primitive aborigines. Although he does literally “become the Other” by taking on a new body, he is still a white man controlling a non-white population, who could not have survived without his paternal white wisdom. In the process, of course, he “claims the body of the colored Other (the chief’s daughter, naturally)…a symbolic frontier that will be fertile ground for [his] reconstruction of the masculine norm for asserting [himself] as [a] transgressive desiring object.” Thus, the “natural” order is reasserted – the white man dominates the blue people and “owns” the woman, even while superficially appearing to undermine white imperialism.
Could this film have been made with a black man as the hero, or, even less likely, a woman? I think not.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Victims of equality: Reaganism - the new racism
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)