Black Man’s Burden

In their January 16th New York Times article, “How the Movies Made a President“, Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott provide an interesting analysis of the development of the archetypes of black manhood in film, using this as a frame through which to position Barack Obama’s historic ascendency to the Presidency and the enormously high expectations he faces as he assumes the position.

The authors begin by arguing that the existence of black presidents in television and film, such as Dennis Haysbert on “24″  and  Morgan Freeman in “Deep Impact”, has “helped us imagine” the very possibility of a black commander in chief. From there, they build into a broad discussion of  the progression of black men in the movies over the past several decades “from the ghetto to the boardroom, from supporting roles in kitchens, liveries, and social-problem movies to the rarefied summit of the Hollywood A-list.” One thing that struck me while reading the article were the similarities between the ways black men have been stereotyped and relegated to particular types of characters and the way women have faced a similarly reductionist treatment in movies. Of course, the stereotypes faced by these groups take different forms, but in some ways at least they both amount to the same thing–devices through which to reify and clarify white malehood through contrast with otherness. Too often women and black characters are portrayed as agency-less, figures to be acted upon, or are placed on pedestals, representing particular monolithic, unrealistic virtues.

One line struck me as particularly resonant in exploring the parallels between constructions of black malehood and the black male body and constructions of women and their bodies in film: “Movie history is littered with the mangled (Joe Morton in ‘Terminator 2′), flayed ([Morgan] Freeman in ‘Unforgiven’) and even mauled (Harold Perrineau in ‘The Edge’) bodies of supporting black characters, some sacrificed on an altar of their relationships with the white headliners, others rendered into first prey for horror-movie monsters.” This immediately  summoned to my mind the posts I’ve written about the eroticization of violence to women(“Ad Nauseum“, “Dead Sexy“) in movies, print ads, and other visual media (here’s a new example I recently came across) , as well as other things I’ve read and written about the objectification of women as a tool of oppression, objectification, and delegitimization, like Laura Mulvey’s discussion of the concept of “castration anxiety” in her article “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, a phenomenon she argues is enacted in film through the constant controlling and often punishing “male gaze” which is employed to keep women in a safe, controllable space (as I discussed in my post “Nattering Nabobs of Negativism“).

Many of the arguments and ideas suggested by this article also call to mind bell hooks’ article, “Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance”. In this piece, hooks writes that “the commodification of differences promotes paradigms of consumption wherein whatever difference the Other inhabits is eradicated, via exchange, by a consumer cannibalism that not only displaces the Other but denies the significance of that Other’s history through the process of decontextualization.” As I wrote in a paper last semester,

“hooks argues that normative, mainstream white culture is fascinated by and drawn to the archetypal Other only in so far as the Otherness is useful to it–useful in exciting desires, useful in allowing access to a perceived world of idealized ‘primitivism,’ and sensual naturalism, useful in adding exotic ‘flavor’ to daily life, useful in assuaging the guilt of a legacy of white supremacy and black subjugation, above all useful in providing a canvas, a backdrop against which whiteness may define itself all the more clearly, centrally, and powerfully.”

When hooks refers to the “commodification of differences,” she is referring to the reforming of the Other into recognizable forms, forms which reflect nostalgia for an idealized vision of a “glorious past”. hooks looks at examples like the black nationalism movement and rap music in exploring the cannibalization of otherness and displacement and denial of significance, the decontextualization and dehistoricization of the black Otherness. She writes that dominant understandings, imagery, and stereotypes of Otherness render what might otherwise be subversive or self-assertive a “spectacle” of sorts, read within dominant discourses rather than opening the public up to new or expanded discourses.

Later on in my paper on hooks, I examined the campaign and election of Barack Obama as a lens through which to explore ideas about Otherness and the commodification thereof, writing:

“It is interesting to examine hooks’ arguments about Otherness and white supremacy and privilege in the aftermath to the historic 2008 election, an election which saw a black man beat a white man (and a white woman) to be decisively elected President of the United States. Yet, though his very victory would seem to suggest that hooks’ arguments are outdated and no longer relevant, much about the way Barack Obama was perceived by the American public and much about how he carefully shaped and marketed his persona, his “brand”, throughout the campaign holds echoes of hooks’ ideas. Obama represents an interesting figure culturally, racially, and his story, of being born to a white American mother and a black African father was of seemingly infinite fascination to the American public, something Obama exploited skillfully. Obama proved a master at constructing a narrative, building a brand around himself and his story. During the campaign, he was frequently chastised by some, particularly those in the African American community for “white washing” himself, often avoiding discussions or narratives of race that were overly controversial.

Instead, he built his image as a cultural hybrid, making sure not to come across as too racially radical, too Other, but at the same time, using his black heritage as a representation of his slogan of unity and change. In fact, some have suggested that it was at least in part Obama’s mixed race and his light skin, that allowed him to have the success he had, just as in fashion and other sectors of mainstream, white-controlled media where the black faces represented are predominantly light skinned blacks. Obama represented for the “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” just enough of the intrigue of Otherness, but not so much that he presented a real danger or threat to the status quo, at least for most people. Obama as a public figure is a fascinating embodiment of the commodification of Otherness. His blackness was marketed as part of his narrative of diversity and change, yet his light skin and non-confrontational, easily digestible public image and stances on race issues (when, in fact, he even voiced such stances, which was fairly rare) allowed him to be easily consumable by a broad audience.

It is important to note, though, that a main strategy of those who opposed Obama was to try to play up his Otherness, suggesting that he wasn’t like “us”, that he was “too” Other and therefore subversive and not to be trusted. These opponents focused on things like Obama’s black Islamic father, and on his former “radical” black preacher, Jeremiah Wright. Ultimately, however, Obama’s successful commodification and marketing of himself which both exploited and downplayed his status as the Other was successful in helping him to create an appealing personal narrative and working the “white supremacist, capitalist patriarch[al]” status quo to his advantage. He turned the very tools usually directed at blacks by whites as means of control on himself, and was thus able to dictate the terms of the discourse. This is in no way meant to downplay President-elect Obama’s accomplishments or all of the issues of the campaign cycle that had nothing to do with race, but hooks’ arguments about commodification and the decontextualization and cannibalistic consumption of Otherness certainly provide an interesting lens through which to examine Obama’s campaign and election, events that at first glance would seem to completely disprove hooks’ statements.

 

Dargis and Scott, too, take their broader arguments full circle, finishing by looking at the feat Obama faces of living up to the expectations created by his almost messianic persona as he begins his presidency. As they write “Saviour, counselor, patriarch, oracle, avenger, role model–compared with all this, being president looks like a pretty straightforward job.” They voice concern that the constructions and stereotypes long put forward by movies and other cultural narratives of monolithic black manhood, particularly “fantasies of black heroism,” of the “black messiah” figure (as represented by many of Will Smith’s recent roles, such as those in “The Pursuit of Happyness,” “I Am Legend,” “Seven Pounds,” and even “Hancock”) have informed the construction of Obama’s public persona and will create a uniquely challenging burden for President Obama (how good it feels to write that) going forward.

The Naked Truth

I’m so sick of PETA. As a long-time vegetarian and animal lover, I think it’s great that there are organizations that are working for the ethical treatment of animals, particularly the kinds of inhumane practices that go into the mass production of meats like beef and chicken. But while fighting for the ethical treatment of animals, PETA seems too often to forget about the ethical treatment of people. While I disagree with the intimidation and scare tactics used by PETA to garner attention and get their message across–tactics like throwing red paint or pies on the fur coats of famous women in public and similar public spectacles, which I believe are counterproductive and give a radical, extremist, and thus marginalized face to animal rights, what I want to talk about  is PETA’s longstanding series of ad campaigns which portray naked women with some variation of the words “Fur? I’d rather go naked”.

It bothers me that PETA considers it a good idea, an appropriate strategy to objectify women in order to try to call attention to their cause. Of course, it’s not as if the women featured in the ads (Eva Mendes, Pamela Anderson, Christy Turlington, Alicia Silverstone and Khloe Kardashian, above, to name just a few) were forced to be in them. But in my mind these ads just cheapen PETA’s message and reflect poorly on the organization. Of course, any activist cause wants to call attention to their message. But to me, it seems that if the only way to do that is to resort to hiding behind something as simplistic and cheap as naked female flesh, then your message must not be all that strong or clear. How about instead drawing attention to the many vegan clothing options that are now available? Or to any number of strong and persuasive arguments against meat and fur?

I just hate it when, in pursuit of their own cause, people totally lose touch with the contradictions inherent in their actions–an extreme example is pro-life protesters bombing abortion clinics, killing or injuring those inside. Of course, PETA’s behavior does not even begin to approach the magnitude of this example. It’s in a totally different category. It doesn’t physically hurt anyone, at least not directly. It does, however, participate in and breed a culture of misogyny and female objectification which seems to run at cross purposes with any movement working toward the ethical treatment of anything. To look at these ads, it appears that only young, nubile, skinny, buxom women are compelled to throw off their furs in favor of their birthday suits. Larger women: it appears PETA would prefer that you keep your fur and use it to stay clothed. 

If PETA really wanted to enact some change, there are plenty of effective, fact-based media campaigns they could be launching. If they focused on using all that ad money to get out the facts, I am quite sure they could have a real impact, one that would actually bring broader awareness and cultural shifts in attitude. And factually based advertising doesn’t have to mean dry and preachy. But I honestly find it difficult to believe that anyone, male or female, looks at those ads and, in a conversionary moment, casts off their mink stole. If PETA is so committed to ethical treatment, they should consider the contribution these ads make to the barrage of hyper-sexualized, objectified images of women that face girls and women each day. Participating in a culture which breeds female objectification by men and women alike, a culture that causes girls and women to starve themselves, sometimes to death, trying to look like the ideals they are presented with, a culture in which girls even before puberty are already behaving and dressing in ways that represent their already-instilled belief that their greatest worth is in their appearances and sexuality, it is ethically irresponsible to be actively participating in generating these kinds of messages. PETA should consider whether the values they are perpetuating are contradictory to the very mission of their organization and whether it is constructive or necessary to resort to these kinds of lows in order for their voice to be heard at the table. I, for one, believe that it’s not.

Ad Nauseum

Ad for Preowned BMWs. The text reads: "You know you're not the first"

Dovetailing nicely with my last post, Alternet today republished a piece by Alex Leo originally posted on the Huffington Post on December 8 entitled “Five Sexist Trends the Advertising World Just Can’t Shake.” Examining examples of misogynistic advertising imagery and messages in categories like “Bondage,” “Rape,” and “Sluts,” Leo writes that “the advertising world has not caught up to the advances of half our population and continues to use stereotypes and violence to prey on our most vile desires.” She illustrates her points with examples of the kinds of advertising she discusses, ads for products by companies like BMW (above), Nikon, and Remy Martin.

Leo makes some great points. My only point of contention with the piece is with her argument that “The fact that these trends are so widespread is not the fault of the advertising world,” that “these people are paid to appeal to our ids, they are often self-aware in their tendency to make the world harder for women, that’s the life they’ve chosen.” She contends that the blame lies instead with “mainstream companies like BMW, Mitchum, Nikon, mainstream publications that host these images, and mainstream readers who use these products despite their appalling treatment of women.” I don’t disagree with this second statement and on one level, I understand the distinction she is making. But, personally, it seems to me that there is more than enough guilt to go around. Those at every level of production and consumption of these images and messages are complicit on different levels, for different levels, to different degrees. The argument that advertisers are merely ”react[ing] to client demands and consumer activity” just doesn’t hold water for me.  

Change, if it is to occur in a real, substantive way will have to be systemic and not selective. No single part of the system can be truly reformed without the complicity of the the other parts. As writer and activist Audre Lorde put it so well, “the master’s tools can never dismantle the master’s house” –consumers and companies can’t be expected to change their patterns of consumption, values, and behavior in a system where the “master’s tools,” of the advertising industry still largely dictate the terms of the discourse. This is not to suggest that change cannot start within a smaller group, that we as consumers should not exercise the power we have in resistance of negative, sexist messages in advertising. But giving advertisers immunity from their share of the blame is counterproductive to enacting broad-based, systemic change in cultural discourses.

Dead Sexy

Just…wow. I know that by it’s very nature, there is something deadly about sexuality and something sexual about death. I know that this relationship, the tensions between these two, are a source of endless fascination, particularly in a culture as puritanical as ours. But good grief, Duncan Quinn (is he a real person or just a brand? In my mind, he’s the guy smugly holding the noose around the dead girl’s neck), this is taking that trope WAY over the line. As Feministe puts it, “Gotta love it when images of dead or drugged women are sexy enough to sell men’s clothes.”

 I brought up the eroticization of violence to women in action movies and other cultural media in response to a comment on my James Bond post a while back, pointing to the stylized death of the consulate worker in Quantum of Solace who is pictured sprawled naked across a clean bedspread, coated in shiny black oil, limp and lifeless, a sex object  for display and viewing pleasure even after, and in some ways because of, her brutal death. This kind of thing is everywhere, it’s just not often so blatant as it is here. Though they’re usually more subtle, the message that there’s something appealing and sexy about physically dominated, injured, or even, as in this case, dead women are undeniable. This ad reminds me of another flagrant example from a year or so ago–another high fashion print ad, this one for Dolce & Gabbana, which depicted four men looking on as a fifth holds down a scantily clad woman, her back arched but face blank, passive. The whole thing basically amounts to a stylized gang rape scene. In another ad from around the same time, this one for Cesare Paciotti, a woman with a barely-there dress sprawls half on, half off a couch, her head strained back, one hand gripping the sofa, her eyes glazed and passive in a scene that suggests some kind of date rape scenario.

I’m not sure which is more disturbing–the ad above which is targeting men, or the others I’ve described which target women. These and other ads ranging from offensive to downright disturbing can be found on the National Organization for Women’s Love Your Body website, and there are many more that could easily be added. Not only are these ads disturbing to look at, but, cumulatively, I believe they contribute directly to shaping understandings of gender that are absorbed, largely subconsciously, by both men and women daily. When this kind of thing appears in a magazine opposite an article about pore refining face masques or how to talk your boss into giving you a raise, it becomes normalized. As a result, the sad fact is that many people glance at an image like this and, without so much as a blink of an eye, turn the page.