Flaming Lip Service to Democracy

While leafing through my university's student newspaper this morning, I came across this story from the Associated Press about Oklahoma's adoption of the song "Do You Realize?" by the Flaming Lips as the official state rock song. The gist of the story is that the song earned the most votes in an online contest, but then enough Oklahoma legislators voted against making it the official state rock song to keep it from being declared as such. Reasons cited included being upset about use of foul language by band members and being offended by bandmember Michael Ivins once wearing a red tee-shirt with a yellow hammer-and-sickle symbol (a symbol that denotes the Communist Party) on it.

I was especially struck by the statement by Republican Representative Corey Holland, who said, "The great thing about this country is he has the right to make whatever statement he wants to make. I have the right to be offended by that.” The problem here is exactly the problem with so many politicians, especially on the conservative side, who offer us rhetorical constructions of equality without recognizing the relations of power that are involved in the things that they are discussing. Here, Holland suggests that he and Ivins are on equal terms in public discourse--that Ivins' right to express himself with the tee-shirt and Holland's right to be offended by it are on equal footing. On the one hand, in a situation free of hierarchies of power, I might agree with Holland. These are both legitimate forms of expression and personal opinion. However, this situation is not free of hierarchies of power. Namely, as a state representative, Holland had the power to vote against adoption of the Flaming Lips' song as the state rock song and, thus, join those who kept the song from being declared the state song. In the process, Holland and others like him could assert their right to be offended over the right of the Flaming Lips to express themselves, which is exactly how censorship and marginalization develop and proceed. In this instance, Holland has a certain form of power that makes his statement, at best, misleading, and, more likely, dishonest.

This is indicative of a larger problem that exists with much discussion of rights, opportunities, and equality in the United States. In the name of these kinds of idealistic, oversimplified maxims about equality of rights and opportunities, our public discourse so often neglects the power relations that make things unequal and that privilege some perspectives over others. Until we become much more willing to talk about these issues of power and be self-reflexive in our discussion of these issues, I'm afraid we'll keep spinning our wheels, not really addressing issues and not really pursuing a better democracy. And I'll keep reading stories like this and feeling incensed at the state of public discourse in the United States like I was this morning.

Fortunately, this story has what, from my perspective at least, is a happy ending: The governor of Oklahoma signed an executive order declaring the song the official rock song of the state. This is, of course, a solution that does not divorce itself from the issues of power that I have been discussing, as in this case the governor asserted his power over that of the legislature. The difference between me and Holland--a difference that I think makes a world of difference--is that I'll acknowledge that that issue of power is involved and that, even while I am glad for the governor's decision, I acknowledge that the process by which the song was adopted remains a reflection of a system that continues to need work if it is to approximate a fuller democracy.