How about if we start out with a bit of Beyoncé ...
A few years ago I came up with the following philosophy about contemporary U.S. politics: Most Republicans are jackasses, most Democrats are dumbasses, and most third-party and independent candidates try to be smartasses. And when you've got a bunch of asses, what they produce is a bunch of crap.
It was an attempt to be pithy, though more recently I'm thinking it may be too crass and generalized. It certainly suggests some things about my own ideological assumptions. That said, I still think there is something to the basic sentiments it's trying to suggest, and I think a recent situation involving Sarah Palin is a good example of this.
Apparently, Palin made a series of attempts on Twitter to comment on the proposal to build a mosque near the World Trade Center site in Manhattan. In the process, she said "refudiate," which is not actually a word. Some on the left have picked this up as a reason to make fun of her, suggesting or implying once again that this is further evidence that she is quite intellectually challenged.
Now, I am far from a fan of Palin. I think she has been embarrassing in her lack of eluctionary abilities, her apparent lack of even fundamental knowledge of things about which she speaks, and her continued use of simple rhetorical constructions that lack merit, consistency, and coherence. So, I can understand frustration that she has become a prominent political figure in this country. On the other hand, I think focusing energy on her use of "refudiate" is silly, petty, and actually damaging.
I make speaking mistakes all the time. Few, if any, people don't. In fact, during the 2008 election, when folks pointed out the many articulation flaws of Palin, many individuals on the right and in the media would then suggest how Joe Biden isn't perfect either, with reference to gaffes he made. This always frustrated me because making speaking blunders here and there differs significantly from consistently being unable to articulate much of anything with coherence. The former is entirely forgiveable as part of being human; the latter is typically a sign of incompetence. Joe Biden, I believe, fit the former; Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has consistently seemed to fit the latter. Perhaps she will improve. She may gain understanding of issues, learn the nuances of positions, and develop her elocutionary skills. Indeed, an appearance with William Shatner on The Tonight Show a while back actually impressed me. In the meantime, I believe that many of her recent statements and comments show that she still has a long way to go.
And this, I think, gets me back to the political philosophy with which I began. That philosophy called Republicans "jackasses" because so many of them seem so willing to use anything to gain and maintain power. They're effective at it, and they can be downright ruthless about it, not seeming to care about the consequences or consistency of the rhetoric they espouse. As conservatives, they also have power already on their side. The rhetorical concept of burden of proof suggests that in a debate the burden of proof lies with the party trying to challenge what is already assumed. Those arguing from what is already assumed enjoy the privilege of resting on that assumption until it is challenged enough to be questioned or overturned. Conservatism, by definition, has this power of assumption, and conservatives today quite readily use it, even when the things they say are ultimately inconsistent and incoherent.
Meanwhile, when Democrats get power or get good opportunities to use power, they screw it up over and over again. While freely admitting that this is tied to my own ideological leanings, I tend to think that the left has better ideas. No one's ideas are perfect, but when weighed rationally and with nuance, I think generally the left's arguments tend to have more depth. Indeed, that's actually something Republicans play up, though in a different way, with anti-intellectual rhetoric about leftist elites. In other words, pointing out logical inconsistencies and articulating nuanced positions become devalued, as if doing these things constitutes a problematic view of the world and a means of oppressing other people. Notice, though, that I say "the left," not "Democrats" when I mention these ideas. Two reasons account for this. One is that I think that for the most part the Democratic party in this country isn't really on the left politically. The second is that many of the Democrats I hear don't really go about making arguments for good ideas or don't go about doing it effectively, so I can't group them here. In other words, they're dumbasses.
Making fun of Sarah Palin seems like another instance in which Democrats and others reinforce that assessment. And, ultimately, I think it plays right into the hands of the likes of Sarah Palin and her supporters. Picking on instances like this provides fuel for Palin to continue to identify herself as a victim of the left and of the "lamestream" media, as she likes to call it. (And, by the way, I would argue that the media does have a liberal bias, as so many claim, but I would add the caveat that it's a liberal bias within what is already a conservative frame, which makes it essentially a moderately conservative bias.) Palin does have a long pattern of consistent inability to articulate herself that suggests a lack of competence. Maybe in some way using the word "refudiate" reflects that, but it's such an easy, everyday kind of blunder to make that I don't think it's a big deal, and I don't think a big deal should be made of it. There are plenty of much more potent examples to use to show Palin's apparent lack of competence that the argument does not need examples like this to make that case. To do so seems like it aids the narrative that she (along with her political advisors) has constructed for herself, and it allows her and her supporters to shift attention from the actual content of her statement, which I think is very problematic and the much more important issue here, to her image as victim of the media and the left.
Palin may be incompetent when it comes to solutions and complex explanations of contemporary social, political, and economic issues. She may be becoming more competent as she is learning more about those issues. She appears to be relatively competent at promotion and public relations, recognizing an audience to which she appeals and finding a way to keep appealing to it. Certainly, both of these types of competence play roles in contemporary U.S. politics. I think, though, engaging more with the ideas she promotes as much as possible would be the much more effective and much more humane path for the left. Perhaps, though, that's the problem with the contemporary left. In Ancient Rome, Cicero called rhetoric the combination of eloquence and wisdom. Perhaps the left needs to learn how to focus more fully on consistently stating any wisdom it has in more eloquent terms to make their statements more impenetrable from the anti-intellectual attacks of the right. Petty squabbling over use of the pseudo-word "refudiate" seems anything but this. Indeed, it makes one look like many Democrats look of late (i.e., like a "dumbass") or look like an elitist who engages in attacks on other people's lack of cultural capital as a means of humoring herself/himself (i.e., like a smartass). And whether it's Palin levelling it against Muslims or her detractors levelling it against her, I'm tired of all of the crap.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Independence Day: For You and Me, Not Just Some of Us
“Ain’t that America, you and me …”
John Mellencamp, “Pink Houses”
When I attended spring graduation at Bowling Green State University, I was a little disturbed by the extra rounds of applause given to individuals whose military ranks were stated along with their names as they accepted their diplomas (well, the diploma carriers that would later hold their diplomas, anyway …). I did not join the audience in a round of applause that these students received while others did not. Now, despite what the likes of CNN contributor Ed Rollins (I believe very wrongly) suggests about academics simply not liking the military, I did not do this out of dislike for the military. I’m not a fan of violence, but I understand the usefulness for military, and I am quite happy to support the military in that regard. Rather, given that this was not a military ceremony, I did not believe military members should receive extra recognition. To do so, to me, seems to suggest that they’re more important than everyone else. And, frankly, I don’t think that’s true, and I do think that’s a dangerous way to think.
Now, I understand the idea that the military deserve recognition because they put their lives on the line so much more than other people. … At least I understand where that idea comes from. For some members of the military, yes, their jobs do demand this. However, there are two problems with this. While some are, many military are not really in direct danger of losing their lives on a daily basis. Additionally, this situation is not exclusive to the military. Many individuals throughout United States society put their lives in danger in their jobs, and I’m not just talking about firefighters and police officers. Electrical workers, individuals who work with nuclear and chemical waste, biologists who expose themselves to potentially life-threatening diseases and insects as they do research, and many other individuals risk their lives to do their jobs. Furthermore, individuals who have to work despite health conditions because they need the money to support themselves or they need to keep working to maintain health insurance risk the worsening of their conditions—and, thus, risk their lives—everyday. Many people also work additional jobs, take less vacation, and do other things that might lead to health conditions because they need to make ends meet. These people, too, are risking their health and their lives. So, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that the military risk their lives like no one else does and that they therefore should be celebrated more than other people.
Now, this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t celebrate military members. We have days that we set aside for recognition of military—like Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Additionally, there are military ceremonies produced by military organizations that commemorate military accomplishments. At my mother’s funeral, the military gave a touching salute in commemoration of my mother, as she was a veteran. These are fine times to commemorate what members of the military do. However, that does not mean that commemoration of the military should be associated with everything. I do not think that college graduations are a time to advance military accomplishments above other accomplishments. I do not think that sporting events should be the place to use the military consistently and repeatedly as the means of showing national identity over other means of doing so. I do not think that military expenditures should be virtually ignored in discussions of the need to corral government spending. And I do not believe that the Fourth of July should be a military commemoration.
Does this mean that the military cannot participate in Fourth of July events or other events throughout the year? Absolutely not. By all means, let individuals who identify with the military contribute as such to these events. But these do not seem to be appropriate times to characterize military accomplishments over other kinds of contributions that the many of us give to United States society every day. While the Revolution that began the United States of America certainly had its military components, these did not work alone to produce this nation and the ideals of liberty and equality that the founders of this nation articulated, though they had not yet perfected and we have not yet perfected. These are the ideals that lay at the heart of our continuing mission as a society—the goals toward which we work that provide this country with the potential that makes it worth one’s commitment. And they are the ideals that we celebrate and seek to voice our continuing commitment toward on the Fourth of July. They are, though, as John Mellencamp sang in “Pink Houses,” ideals about “you and me.” We’re all in this together, and to suggest that a select number of us offer more important contributions than the rest of us is not just wrong, it runs counter to those founding ideals. In a word, it’s unpatriotic. If we suggest that academics offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a system of elite aristocracy run by intelligentsia leaders. If we suggest that individuals who own and run businesses offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a different kind of elite aristocracy, this one run by the wealthy and economically powerful. If we suggest that people of a certain religion offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a theocracy. And if we suggest that the military offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a military state. And all of these end results run counter to a democratic society.
The point is that so many of us contribute in so many different ways, and the ideals of democracy would ask us on this, the day to celebrate such ideals, to make sure that we commemorate that diversity, privileging none above the others, none at exclusion to the rest.
John Mellencamp, “Pink Houses”
When I attended spring graduation at Bowling Green State University, I was a little disturbed by the extra rounds of applause given to individuals whose military ranks were stated along with their names as they accepted their diplomas (well, the diploma carriers that would later hold their diplomas, anyway …). I did not join the audience in a round of applause that these students received while others did not. Now, despite what the likes of CNN contributor Ed Rollins (I believe very wrongly) suggests about academics simply not liking the military, I did not do this out of dislike for the military. I’m not a fan of violence, but I understand the usefulness for military, and I am quite happy to support the military in that regard. Rather, given that this was not a military ceremony, I did not believe military members should receive extra recognition. To do so, to me, seems to suggest that they’re more important than everyone else. And, frankly, I don’t think that’s true, and I do think that’s a dangerous way to think.
Now, I understand the idea that the military deserve recognition because they put their lives on the line so much more than other people. … At least I understand where that idea comes from. For some members of the military, yes, their jobs do demand this. However, there are two problems with this. While some are, many military are not really in direct danger of losing their lives on a daily basis. Additionally, this situation is not exclusive to the military. Many individuals throughout United States society put their lives in danger in their jobs, and I’m not just talking about firefighters and police officers. Electrical workers, individuals who work with nuclear and chemical waste, biologists who expose themselves to potentially life-threatening diseases and insects as they do research, and many other individuals risk their lives to do their jobs. Furthermore, individuals who have to work despite health conditions because they need the money to support themselves or they need to keep working to maintain health insurance risk the worsening of their conditions—and, thus, risk their lives—everyday. Many people also work additional jobs, take less vacation, and do other things that might lead to health conditions because they need to make ends meet. These people, too, are risking their health and their lives. So, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that the military risk their lives like no one else does and that they therefore should be celebrated more than other people.
Now, this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t celebrate military members. We have days that we set aside for recognition of military—like Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Additionally, there are military ceremonies produced by military organizations that commemorate military accomplishments. At my mother’s funeral, the military gave a touching salute in commemoration of my mother, as she was a veteran. These are fine times to commemorate what members of the military do. However, that does not mean that commemoration of the military should be associated with everything. I do not think that college graduations are a time to advance military accomplishments above other accomplishments. I do not think that sporting events should be the place to use the military consistently and repeatedly as the means of showing national identity over other means of doing so. I do not think that military expenditures should be virtually ignored in discussions of the need to corral government spending. And I do not believe that the Fourth of July should be a military commemoration.
Does this mean that the military cannot participate in Fourth of July events or other events throughout the year? Absolutely not. By all means, let individuals who identify with the military contribute as such to these events. But these do not seem to be appropriate times to characterize military accomplishments over other kinds of contributions that the many of us give to United States society every day. While the Revolution that began the United States of America certainly had its military components, these did not work alone to produce this nation and the ideals of liberty and equality that the founders of this nation articulated, though they had not yet perfected and we have not yet perfected. These are the ideals that lay at the heart of our continuing mission as a society—the goals toward which we work that provide this country with the potential that makes it worth one’s commitment. And they are the ideals that we celebrate and seek to voice our continuing commitment toward on the Fourth of July. They are, though, as John Mellencamp sang in “Pink Houses,” ideals about “you and me.” We’re all in this together, and to suggest that a select number of us offer more important contributions than the rest of us is not just wrong, it runs counter to those founding ideals. In a word, it’s unpatriotic. If we suggest that academics offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a system of elite aristocracy run by intelligentsia leaders. If we suggest that individuals who own and run businesses offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a different kind of elite aristocracy, this one run by the wealthy and economically powerful. If we suggest that people of a certain religion offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a theocracy. And if we suggest that the military offer more important contributions than anyone else, then we develop a military state. And all of these end results run counter to a democratic society.
The point is that so many of us contribute in so many different ways, and the ideals of democracy would ask us on this, the day to celebrate such ideals, to make sure that we commemorate that diversity, privileging none above the others, none at exclusion to the rest.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Let's No Mets
I've oftened contended that part of being a Mets fan is taking pride in how much the team can really suck. Back in 2003, when the Detroit Tigers threatened to break the Mets' record of 120 losses, I actively rooted for the Tigers to win 5 of their last 6 to finish with 119. I didn't want the Mets to lose the record. I also have a measure of pride when I speak of "The Worst Team Money Could Buy" that finished behind the expansion Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins in 1993. And, I'm proud that the Mets are the franchise that has the longest history without a pitcher throwing a no-hitter. It sounds like, from the comments in today's column by Danny Knobler about the Mets no no-no tradition, I'm not alone in thinking about Met fandom in this way.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Headline: Top Players Other Than Federer, Nadal, and Williams Sisters Will Play at Wimbledon!
The first few lines of the story titled "Federer draws tough road for Wimbledon defense" on CBSSports.com state the following:
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal face challenging paths to set up another Wimbledon final. Serena and Venus Williams also face potential pitfalls before another all-sister title match.
Six-time champion Federer and Nadal -- the only man to beat him at Wimbledon in the last seven finals -- were both handed tricky draws Friday for the grass-court Grand Slam tournament.
Let's see. We know, since it states these groupings could face off in the finals, that Federer and Nadal are on opposite sides of the bracket and that the same can be said for Venus and Serena Williams. Okay, but then, doesn't make the rest of this pretty much self-evident? Inevitably, folks like Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Jelena Jankovic, Francesca Schiavone, and all of the top players (at least all of them playing in the tournament) were going to be on one side of the draw or the other. The Williamses, Nadal, and Federer will all have to face "potential pits," "challenging paths," and "tricky draws." So, um, what's the point?
Oh, I know ... let's just state things in dramatic terms for the sake of drama, even when the things being said are inane and/or preposterous. And that, my friends, I would contend is one of the biggest problems with news reporting today.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal face challenging paths to set up another Wimbledon final. Serena and Venus Williams also face potential pitfalls before another all-sister title match.
Six-time champion Federer and Nadal -- the only man to beat him at Wimbledon in the last seven finals -- were both handed tricky draws Friday for the grass-court Grand Slam tournament.
Let's see. We know, since it states these groupings could face off in the finals, that Federer and Nadal are on opposite sides of the bracket and that the same can be said for Venus and Serena Williams. Okay, but then, doesn't make the rest of this pretty much self-evident? Inevitably, folks like Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Jelena Jankovic, Francesca Schiavone, and all of the top players (at least all of them playing in the tournament) were going to be on one side of the draw or the other. The Williamses, Nadal, and Federer will all have to face "potential pits," "challenging paths," and "tricky draws." So, um, what's the point?
Oh, I know ... let's just state things in dramatic terms for the sake of drama, even when the things being said are inane and/or preposterous. And that, my friends, I would contend is one of the biggest problems with news reporting today.
Monday, April 26, 2010
House Rebuilt
As people who know me well know, I'm a pretty big fan of the television show, House, M.D. Indeed, I even have a research paper on the show that's currently in (and, actually long overdue for) development. (The plan is to have it finished in early summer ...) As a fan, I can also appreciate some creative reworkings of the theme song for the show that have appeared on YouTube. Check out the following:
This one sets clips from the show to the theme song from the 1980s' hit show St. Elsewhere. It needs some work, particularly in making sure to have clips throughout and not to use clips with production crew and actor names randomly popping up, but it still seems to capture the feel of St. Elsewhere's opening montage while setting it to House, M.D.
This one reworks the theme song and opening montage to House, M.D. as Homer [Simpson], M.D.
This one reworks the theme song and opening montage as an opening to Spongebob Squarepants.
And, finally, this one uses the music that ends each episode of House, M.D. to rework the opening montage for an animated version of the show.
This one sets clips from the show to the theme song from the 1980s' hit show St. Elsewhere. It needs some work, particularly in making sure to have clips throughout and not to use clips with production crew and actor names randomly popping up, but it still seems to capture the feel of St. Elsewhere's opening montage while setting it to House, M.D.
This one reworks the theme song and opening montage to House, M.D. as Homer [Simpson], M.D.
This one reworks the theme song and opening montage as an opening to Spongebob Squarepants.
And, finally, this one uses the music that ends each episode of House, M.D. to rework the opening montage for an animated version of the show.
Friday, April 23, 2010
A Victory for Women?
I know I'm a little slow on the uptake on this one, as it's almost two weeks old now, but better late than never, and you all know how life can get busy sometimes ....
Every year I go round and round about watching the Masters. As a fan of golf, I want to watch. The Masters, though, represents privileged elitism in so many ways. While part of it is the lack of female membership at Augusta, there so much more to it than that. (I think Bill Simmons summed a lot of it up nicely last week.) I'm thinking next year I'm going to go back to not watching. I get more and more sickened by the Masters the more I think about it.
This year, I watched a little coverage on ESPN on Friday while working at home, a little on CBS while visiting with my parents on late afternoon Saturday, and a little bit toward the end of the fourth round on Sunday. I probably would have watched the end (I left coverage when the final group had about a hole and a half left), but I had another, more pressing matter to attend to--namely, going to see the musical Wicked.
As I'm sure you know by now, Phil Mickelson won the Masters this year, claiming his third green jacket. And, particularly as a contrast to Tiger Woods' recently uncovered activities, the fact that Phil Mickelson had taken time off the tour last summer to be with his wife and his mother as both battled cancer was played up on the telecast and has been a significant theme in coverage of the event ever since. See, for instance, this column by ESPN's Rick Reilly, as indicative of the kinds of themes and claims that have been occurring. Rightfully, I think, Gregg Doyel at CBSSportsline challenged the extravagant claims of the likes of Reilly. I would agree with what I interpret as Doyel's sentiment. There are some good reasons to applaud and be happy for Mickelson, but let's not exaggerate the claims about his character with blind admiration when we don't really know what goes on his life.
I'm not going to rehash what Doyel says. Please read his article for more. I do, though, want to add something to the conversation, particularly in conjunction with the title--and, thus, the overall tone--of Reilly's piece: "Mickelson's win a victory for women." Seriously, Rick? A victory? I think I understand what Rick is doing, but I think I also understand that this is exactly the stuff that hegemonic power is made of. Where's the victory for women? A privileged man won a tournament full of other privileged men at a golf course that is very heavily built on and steeped in privilege, particularly male privilege in that it continues to lack female membership and took a very public stand against a private call asking it to address that issue by admitting a female member. And this is a victory for women because Mickelson took time off the tour last summer to be with his wife while she was battling breast cancer? Look, I think what Mickelson did was commendable. I also realize that many people (men or women) would not have the financial resources or type of job that would allow them just to take several weeks off like that. My mother is battling cancer right now, and I'm thankful that as a university instructor I have a schedule conducive to making the hour trip to see her fairly often. I also know that (1) I'm lucky to have that opportunity and (2) I'm still not in a position to take off work completely. I think I have it better than a lot of people along those lines. I also recognize I'm privileged to have that opportunity, and I should not take that for granted, particularly when interpreting the actions of others who are less fortunate. Mickelson enjoys even more privilege than I do, and his actions are at least in part the result of his privileges.
And it's on the idea of "privileged actions" that this all goes back to what this means for women. Let's phrase this story this way: A man achieves occupational success in a public arena of activity in which that success is achieved against other men. Indeed, that public arena of activity does not even allow women to be included or to participate. The man also takes care of his wife and his family, as his success in that male-only public arena has allowed him the time and money to provide for and care for them. This is certainly another way to characterize the story of Phil Mickelson. It's also a way of characterizing the story that points out how deeply the entire scenario is built in patriarchy. Saying, then, that Mickelson's win is a victory for women rings rather hollow. Sure, it might bring attention to breast cancer and provides an illustration of a man who did things that suggest care and concern for the most prominent women in his life. Yet, the entire situation patronizes and devalues women as it implies that men should provide for women and that women should accept a system of opportunities that both implicitly and explicitly excludes them and, thus, does not allow them as many opportunities to provide for themselves as it allows for men. Indeed, Augusta National Golf Club and the Masters golf tournament perpetuate a system that positions women to need the care of men. To then celebrate a man for caring for women within such a system does little to advance the cause of opportunities and rights for women. Mickelson's ability to play the role of the caring husband as a contrast to Tiger Woods as the unfaithful husband relies, at least in part, on this system of privilege. Mickelson's actions in winning the Masters exemplify that male privilege. Rather than a victory for women, then, Mickelson's win constitutes a victory for patriarchy, disguised to the likes of Rick Reilly by the attention it places on women in certain ways, though the very ways in which it places that attention on women actually reinforce and perpetuate the system of male privilege. That, in a nutshell, is hegemony--when the things that seem to provide opportunities or "victories" for the oppressed actually reinforce and help perpetuate the system that excludes them.
So, while I like Mickelson, I also see his actions in winning the Masters as privileged, and I recognize them as perpetuating the system of sexism in United States society. In that regard, then, I don't think that he, the many other golfers involved in the tournament, and the many fans of the tournament (myself included) are as "good" to women as accounts like Reilly's might suggest. Now, if Mickelson took another kind of action, like if he used his victory to call for Augusta National Golf Club to admit female members, if he donated a significant portion of his winnings to the National Organization of Women to help their fight against sexism in the United States, or if he did something else along similar lines, then I might be willing to call this a "victory for women."
Every year I go round and round about watching the Masters. As a fan of golf, I want to watch. The Masters, though, represents privileged elitism in so many ways. While part of it is the lack of female membership at Augusta, there so much more to it than that. (I think Bill Simmons summed a lot of it up nicely last week.) I'm thinking next year I'm going to go back to not watching. I get more and more sickened by the Masters the more I think about it.
This year, I watched a little coverage on ESPN on Friday while working at home, a little on CBS while visiting with my parents on late afternoon Saturday, and a little bit toward the end of the fourth round on Sunday. I probably would have watched the end (I left coverage when the final group had about a hole and a half left), but I had another, more pressing matter to attend to--namely, going to see the musical Wicked.
As I'm sure you know by now, Phil Mickelson won the Masters this year, claiming his third green jacket. And, particularly as a contrast to Tiger Woods' recently uncovered activities, the fact that Phil Mickelson had taken time off the tour last summer to be with his wife and his mother as both battled cancer was played up on the telecast and has been a significant theme in coverage of the event ever since. See, for instance, this column by ESPN's Rick Reilly, as indicative of the kinds of themes and claims that have been occurring. Rightfully, I think, Gregg Doyel at CBSSportsline challenged the extravagant claims of the likes of Reilly. I would agree with what I interpret as Doyel's sentiment. There are some good reasons to applaud and be happy for Mickelson, but let's not exaggerate the claims about his character with blind admiration when we don't really know what goes on his life.
I'm not going to rehash what Doyel says. Please read his article for more. I do, though, want to add something to the conversation, particularly in conjunction with the title--and, thus, the overall tone--of Reilly's piece: "Mickelson's win a victory for women." Seriously, Rick? A victory? I think I understand what Rick is doing, but I think I also understand that this is exactly the stuff that hegemonic power is made of. Where's the victory for women? A privileged man won a tournament full of other privileged men at a golf course that is very heavily built on and steeped in privilege, particularly male privilege in that it continues to lack female membership and took a very public stand against a private call asking it to address that issue by admitting a female member. And this is a victory for women because Mickelson took time off the tour last summer to be with his wife while she was battling breast cancer? Look, I think what Mickelson did was commendable. I also realize that many people (men or women) would not have the financial resources or type of job that would allow them just to take several weeks off like that. My mother is battling cancer right now, and I'm thankful that as a university instructor I have a schedule conducive to making the hour trip to see her fairly often. I also know that (1) I'm lucky to have that opportunity and (2) I'm still not in a position to take off work completely. I think I have it better than a lot of people along those lines. I also recognize I'm privileged to have that opportunity, and I should not take that for granted, particularly when interpreting the actions of others who are less fortunate. Mickelson enjoys even more privilege than I do, and his actions are at least in part the result of his privileges.
And it's on the idea of "privileged actions" that this all goes back to what this means for women. Let's phrase this story this way: A man achieves occupational success in a public arena of activity in which that success is achieved against other men. Indeed, that public arena of activity does not even allow women to be included or to participate. The man also takes care of his wife and his family, as his success in that male-only public arena has allowed him the time and money to provide for and care for them. This is certainly another way to characterize the story of Phil Mickelson. It's also a way of characterizing the story that points out how deeply the entire scenario is built in patriarchy. Saying, then, that Mickelson's win is a victory for women rings rather hollow. Sure, it might bring attention to breast cancer and provides an illustration of a man who did things that suggest care and concern for the most prominent women in his life. Yet, the entire situation patronizes and devalues women as it implies that men should provide for women and that women should accept a system of opportunities that both implicitly and explicitly excludes them and, thus, does not allow them as many opportunities to provide for themselves as it allows for men. Indeed, Augusta National Golf Club and the Masters golf tournament perpetuate a system that positions women to need the care of men. To then celebrate a man for caring for women within such a system does little to advance the cause of opportunities and rights for women. Mickelson's ability to play the role of the caring husband as a contrast to Tiger Woods as the unfaithful husband relies, at least in part, on this system of privilege. Mickelson's actions in winning the Masters exemplify that male privilege. Rather than a victory for women, then, Mickelson's win constitutes a victory for patriarchy, disguised to the likes of Rick Reilly by the attention it places on women in certain ways, though the very ways in which it places that attention on women actually reinforce and perpetuate the system of male privilege. That, in a nutshell, is hegemony--when the things that seem to provide opportunities or "victories" for the oppressed actually reinforce and help perpetuate the system that excludes them.
So, while I like Mickelson, I also see his actions in winning the Masters as privileged, and I recognize them as perpetuating the system of sexism in United States society. In that regard, then, I don't think that he, the many other golfers involved in the tournament, and the many fans of the tournament (myself included) are as "good" to women as accounts like Reilly's might suggest. Now, if Mickelson took another kind of action, like if he used his victory to call for Augusta National Golf Club to admit female members, if he donated a significant portion of his winnings to the National Organization of Women to help their fight against sexism in the United States, or if he did something else along similar lines, then I might be willing to call this a "victory for women."
Friday, April 16, 2010
It's Not Easy Being Green
This post definitely needs to begin with a clip from Kermit the Frog.
This past Sunday, my wife and I saw the musical Wicked, which is currently playing at the Stranahan Theater in Toledo, Ohio. The show was awesome. We considered seeing it on Broadway while visiting New York with my wife's sister last summer, but couldn't quite afford it, so we saw Shrek the Musical (which was also very enjoyable) instead. It would have been fun to see Wicked on Broadway, but this show, which is part of its national tour, certainly was wonderful and highly recommendable.
I don't think it's a particularly ruinous spolier to say that Wicked revolves around the social derision and alienation the Wicked Witch of the West (Elphaba) experiences because she is green. Indeed, Elphaba and Shrek have that trait in common in their respective stories. From the beginning people find Elphaba's green-ness not just strange, but scary.
As the story proceeds, it asks the viewer to consider the ways that people who look different are treated. In doing so, it interrogates not only those differences, but also the rhetorical construction of the term "wicked." We learn that Elphaba is not really wicked, just as we learn in Shrek that Shrek is not really mean. As Wicked interrogates what makes someone become seen as wicked, along the way the play also interrogates what makes someone become seen as wonderful, namely in connection with the "Wonderful" Wizard of Oz. (I haven't read the Gregory Maguire book upon which the play is based, though the description of it on Amazon.com, including the characterization of it as "postmodern," would seem to suggest the same theme runs in it as well.)
This seems like pretty good stuff, particularly if folks, including kids, while watching it allow themselves to reflect on this message. In particular, both Wicked and Shrek the Musical seem to offer the message in a way that suggests that difference is something not just to accept, but to celebrate. It's one thing to offer the idea that even though people look, act or seem different from the norm, these people deserve respect and acceptance. That message, though, can still reinforce the norm as a standard by which people are judged and considered. In fact, it can easily turn into a kind of patronizing view of those who are different that still reinforces the idea that most people should still fit the norm and be the same. I think Wicked and Shrek the Musical take this a step further, though, when they suggest that we celebrate and seek difference and diversity. Rather than seeing difference as okay, this view sees difference as vital, cherishable, and desirable. Of course, the inclusion of this message does not divorce these stories from doing some marginalization. For instance, Shrek (both in film form and in play form) is, among other things, ripe for critique of its representation of blackness in the character Donkey. Additionally, among other things, Wicked would seem to warrant critique of its representation of individuals who use wheelchairs. These critiques deserve attention; however, that should also not negate the potential these musicals have for promoting a message of embracing diversity. Indeed, as one song from Shrek the Musical reminds us, "Let Your Freak Flag Fly"!
This all seems to point to the rewarding potential of popular culture. Popular culture can present in popular form ideas that can make us think, make us reflect, make us rethink, and make us change. Seldom, though, do these things occur without analysis and discussion. Popular culture is entertainment, and to a significant extent enjoying intertextual references to The Wizard of Oz, following a well-constructed story, and hearing emotionally powerful songs is enough unto itself. However, popular culture really, I think, often seeks (or at least allows for) more. That "more" only happens when we analyze and discuss it, looking at the messages and themes it offers, looking at the deeper ideas these messages and themes reflect, and recognizing the limitations of these messages and themes as they are told. So, I'd recommend going to see Wicked (or Shrek the Musical) and taking kids, especially as a way to get them interested in theater, but don't just stop at the end of the show. Talk about it, interrogate it, analyze it, and seek to understand its limitations. Despite what so often seems to be a popular sentiment, we can enjoy and critique at the same time. Indeed, I think democracy more fully thrives when we simultaneously do both. And so does popular culture. And so do we.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)