I haven't seen the Hunger Games yet. Nor have I read the book. Maybe next week when I'm on vacation. So I am definitely being presumptuous here in writing about it. Or about other people's reactions to it.
Jezebel has an article on the horrific racist response of some 'fans' of the Hunger Games. It seems that some white people were SHOCKED that characters described as black in the book actually...yes ACTUALLY...turned out to be black in the movie. Absolutely SHOCKING!!!
None of this would be remarkable except for the fact that it is totally and completely unremarkable. The casual, automatic and unconscious nature of the racism pervading these comments is truly amazing. Hatred of black people is just an implicit and intimate part of who these people are. They can't even think of black people as 'persons'.
Just think of how this kind of all-encompassing racism poisons everyday life. As Jezebel quotes the tumblr blog author:
These people are MAD that the girl that they cried over while reading the book was "some black
girl" all along. So now they're angry. Wasted tears, wasted emotions. It's sad to think that had they
known that she was black all along, there would have been [no] sorrow or sadness over her death.
There are MAJOR TIE-INS to these reactions and the injustices that we see around the world
today. I don't even need to spell it out because I know that you're all a smart bunch.
This is a BIG problem. Think of all the murdered children. Think of all the missing children that get
NO SCREEN TIME on the news.
It is NOT a coincidence.
No, it is not a coincidence. White people only ever seeing other white people. Only ever caring about other white people. Only ever valuing other white people. Other people don't count on a day-to-day basis. You can see how inequality is perpetuated at the most personal level. If white people get angry about being tricked into caring about a fictional black character, just imagine how they react to the black people they actually experience in real life.
Every casual negative comment. Every automatic negative response. Every unconscious negative reaction. Even the most tiniest itsy bitsy teeny weenie one. This is all a big deal. There is an obvious connection between reading a book and not seeing the black characters and the mass incarceration of black people in the USA, for instance. No one cares because no one sees them. They don't exist as 'persons' for the majority of white people.
That is inequality. That is power. That is racism.
We see it in the Goth community, too. When goffs say there's not such thing as a black goth. Or make disparaging comments about black goths.
That is inequality. That is power. That is racism.
The personal is political. That's where the fight starts, my dark comrades!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Objectification and objects
In my last post, I objected to the objectification of women in various sexist cliches like the 'evil demon seductress', the femme fatale et al...In an earlier post on 'object-oriented philosophy', I explored the positive aspects of objects. So objects are good and bad...? How is that consistent? Well, my dark comrades, it depends on what you mean by the word 'object'.
Graham Harman's object-oriented philosophy uses the concept of 'objects' in a specific way. As he writes, an 'object cannot be reduced to the definitions we give of it, because then the thing would change with each tiny change in its known properties (p. 16).' The object is specifically not limited to human limitations and purposes. It 'partly evades all announcement through its qualities, resisting or subverting efforts to identify it with any surface. It is that which exceeds any of the qualities, accidents, or relations that can be ascribed to it (p. 16).'
Therein lies the difference between an 'object' in a positive sense and how we use the word 'object' when we talk about the act of objectification. Harman's object is a deep structure. Stereotypes and cliches, on the other hand, are reflective surfaces returning the preconceived notions of the gazer. In the case of sexist stereotypes and cliches, the reflective surface reveals the misogynist ideals of the male viewer: "Mirror mirror on the wall, what woman is not a femme fatale?"
So clearly a surface like the 'femme fatale' is not an object in Harman's sense. And the act of objectification is precisely (and paradoxically) to reduce a multidimensional object into a one dimensional point in a control system where meanings and qualities are strictly defined and limited. In the case of the 'femme fatale' by men. For men.
Graham Harman's object-oriented philosophy uses the concept of 'objects' in a specific way. As he writes, an 'object cannot be reduced to the definitions we give of it, because then the thing would change with each tiny change in its known properties (p. 16).' The object is specifically not limited to human limitations and purposes. It 'partly evades all announcement through its qualities, resisting or subverting efforts to identify it with any surface. It is that which exceeds any of the qualities, accidents, or relations that can be ascribed to it (p. 16).'
Therein lies the difference between an 'object' in a positive sense and how we use the word 'object' when we talk about the act of objectification. Harman's object is a deep structure. Stereotypes and cliches, on the other hand, are reflective surfaces returning the preconceived notions of the gazer. In the case of sexist stereotypes and cliches, the reflective surface reveals the misogynist ideals of the male viewer: "Mirror mirror on the wall, what woman is not a femme fatale?"
So clearly a surface like the 'femme fatale' is not an object in Harman's sense. And the act of objectification is precisely (and paradoxically) to reduce a multidimensional object into a one dimensional point in a control system where meanings and qualities are strictly defined and limited. In the case of the 'femme fatale' by men. For men.
Goth stereotypes: the femme fatale et al
Goths often develop a personal style by modeling or re-modeling a dark archetype like the vampire, the witch, the zombie, the femme fatale...But archetypes can decompose into stereotypes and then rot further into cliches. Once cliches, these archetypes succumb to rigor mortis and decay away...
The femme fatale is often represented as a figure of powerful female sexuality. But who made her a representative? Who gave her the power? And who has the power to take it all away? Is the femme fatale a potent archetype or little more than a porn cliche?
Trope or cliche, that is the question posed in this short video on the Feminist Frequency titled: 'The Evil Demon Seductress'. Admittedly this video isn't specifically about the femme fatale. Only her supernatural evil sister. But the same criticisms apply. The evil sexy woman is a cliche. And one that reinforces sexist and misogynist notions about women and female sexuality.
As Anita Sarkeesian says, this common theme always shows women [to paraphrase] 'using sexuality to manipulate poor hapless men.' They 'use [their] sexuality as a weapon.' The evil demon seductress is never portrayed as actually 'enjoying or exploring her sexuality.' No, it is always about power and control. Sex makes women powerful. Gives them power over men. That is all the sexy demon seductress wants. She always has an 'ulterior motive.' And her 'sexuality is [always] dangerous.' All the sexist and misogynist stereotypes of women and their sexuality are present in the evil demon seductress. So men get to enjoy her sexy body while getting their sexist patriarchal attitudes towards women and sexuality confirmed.
And that is the crucial role of the evil demon seductress. And the femme fatale. She is not some great villain or awesome theme. She is an ideological construct fulfilling an important role within a patriarchal culture.
The femme fatale is a male fantasy. And in a sexist society, male fantasies are tools of male dominance. Male desire constrains and choreographs the femme fatale as a sex object par excellence. She has all the cruelty, coldness and self-transcendence of an object. And as nothing but an empty mirror, a relentless monster of male projection, she is a cautionary tale and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The battle between the sexes is stil on. Sex here is about power. The femme fatale uses her sexuality to dominate men. But it isn't about her sexuality at all. No, she personifies male fantasies and fulfills male desires. Even as she is supposedly controlling them, she is catering to their every wish and whim and fancy. She is completely their creature, modifying her being for them. To fit their 'dark' idealization. How is that empowering? How is that about self-expression?
Another issue with the femme fatale is the one-sided nature of her power. The femme fatale only has power because of her sexuality. The F Word puts it perfectly 'The problem is, that within our pornified culture, women seem to only be able to find power in their sexualized bodies.' Women can only assert themselves as sex object. The femme fatale isn't risque or norm-defying. She is a porn type. And if it is in porn, it is mainstream and safe for the male viewer. The femme fatale has been totally defanged and declawed for male consumption. And worse, her power is utterly fake. Based as it is on catering to what men want.
The strip-to-control-the-drip scenario: Show me some skin and I'll listen to what you have to say. Show me a boob and I'll even buy you a drink. Pull up your pvc skirt and, well, baby...I'll give you whatever you want. That is the femme fatale's sexuality. That is the worst version of female sexuality in our culture. Goth girls behaving badly. The femme fatale is no radical. No real threat to the male order.
The femme fatale is the projection of the perfect woman from the standpoint of patriarchal ideology. She justifies male dominance while looking fabulous because she is nothing more than a predator. She can never be an equal. She can never be a full participant in society. She is a "threat" that must be neutralized. The shrew must be tamed and converted into the complete submissive. That is the bottom line of the femme fatale.
The femme fatale is often represented as a figure of powerful female sexuality. But who made her a representative? Who gave her the power? And who has the power to take it all away? Is the femme fatale a potent archetype or little more than a porn cliche?
Trope or cliche, that is the question posed in this short video on the Feminist Frequency titled: 'The Evil Demon Seductress'. Admittedly this video isn't specifically about the femme fatale. Only her supernatural evil sister. But the same criticisms apply. The evil sexy woman is a cliche. And one that reinforces sexist and misogynist notions about women and female sexuality.
As Anita Sarkeesian says, this common theme always shows women [to paraphrase] 'using sexuality to manipulate poor hapless men.' They 'use [their] sexuality as a weapon.' The evil demon seductress is never portrayed as actually 'enjoying or exploring her sexuality.' No, it is always about power and control. Sex makes women powerful. Gives them power over men. That is all the sexy demon seductress wants. She always has an 'ulterior motive.' And her 'sexuality is [always] dangerous.' All the sexist and misogynist stereotypes of women and their sexuality are present in the evil demon seductress. So men get to enjoy her sexy body while getting their sexist patriarchal attitudes towards women and sexuality confirmed.
And that is the crucial role of the evil demon seductress. And the femme fatale. She is not some great villain or awesome theme. She is an ideological construct fulfilling an important role within a patriarchal culture.
The femme fatale is a male fantasy. And in a sexist society, male fantasies are tools of male dominance. Male desire constrains and choreographs the femme fatale as a sex object par excellence. She has all the cruelty, coldness and self-transcendence of an object. And as nothing but an empty mirror, a relentless monster of male projection, she is a cautionary tale and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The battle between the sexes is stil on. Sex here is about power. The femme fatale uses her sexuality to dominate men. But it isn't about her sexuality at all. No, she personifies male fantasies and fulfills male desires. Even as she is supposedly controlling them, she is catering to their every wish and whim and fancy. She is completely their creature, modifying her being for them. To fit their 'dark' idealization. How is that empowering? How is that about self-expression?
Another issue with the femme fatale is the one-sided nature of her power. The femme fatale only has power because of her sexuality. The F Word puts it perfectly 'The problem is, that within our pornified culture, women seem to only be able to find power in their sexualized bodies.' Women can only assert themselves as sex object. The femme fatale isn't risque or norm-defying. She is a porn type. And if it is in porn, it is mainstream and safe for the male viewer. The femme fatale has been totally defanged and declawed for male consumption. And worse, her power is utterly fake. Based as it is on catering to what men want.
The strip-to-control-the-drip scenario: Show me some skin and I'll listen to what you have to say. Show me a boob and I'll even buy you a drink. Pull up your pvc skirt and, well, baby...I'll give you whatever you want. That is the femme fatale's sexuality. That is the worst version of female sexuality in our culture. Goth girls behaving badly. The femme fatale is no radical. No real threat to the male order.
The femme fatale is the projection of the perfect woman from the standpoint of patriarchal ideology. She justifies male dominance while looking fabulous because she is nothing more than a predator. She can never be an equal. She can never be a full participant in society. She is a "threat" that must be neutralized. The shrew must be tamed and converted into the complete submissive. That is the bottom line of the femme fatale.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Happy International Grrls' Day!
Yes, it is officially called International Women's Day. But shouldn't this day celebrate challenges to that gender construct? Why not be an Unwoman? And let this be the anthem for unwomen everywhere!
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
The life of objects
A mark of literary success is the independent existence of the work. For example, China Mieville's Perdido Street Station isn't just a novel, it is a living world. A real multidimensional landscape populated by real things that we can continuously imagine in different poses, actions, reactions and combinations. Much of this activity occurring off-camera as it were. In a plane much wider, longer and higher than the papery confines of the novel itself. That is what a work of art should be. Far more than the thing itself. An object. With a life all its own. One we cannot ever fully grasp. Or its creator the possibilities exhaust. The fathoms plumb. The depths illuminate.
Mieville's second book in his Bas-Lag trilogy, The Scar, is equally a success by these modest measures. This object illustrates another facet of the living world that is an object of art. This object is animated by objects. Each character here is an object with its own virtual life to live free from Mieville's machinations (I could say the same about Perdido Street Station but I find the objects in The Scar even more stunning out of pure personal preference and nothing more!). Uther Doul. The Lovers. Kruach Aum. The Ghosthead (who are these things from their freezing fiery world harnessing the wild, wierd and haunting powers of possibility?). The gryndylow. All the cast. We can fill out their backstories in our own imaginations. And give them destinies beyond the page. They exist in the same way anything exists...
How is that? Speculative realism is a new school of philosophy which is, well, too complicated to summarize briefly but let's just say that one part of it can be defined as 'object-oriented philosophy.' It is realistic, that is, it wants to return philosophy to speculation on the nature of the real world instead of getting lost in language. Looking at the nature of objects as non-human aspects of reality is a thing speculative realism does. And philosopher Graham Harman is one of the main proponents of this object-oriented approach.
Now really looking at objects is harder than it sounds because it means trying to think of them as independent and non-human things, which means going beyond the anthropocentric view to see the thingness of things. The Wikipedia article on Harman says it well when it describes how he 'affirms the autonomy of objects while aiming to 'allude' to their shadowy underground life and covert interactions by means of metaphor.' So allusion and metaphor are ways we can describe the indescribable objecthood of objects.
And literature as the main domain of allusion and metaphor can then be a tool to help us find a few hints and clues as to the nature of the objects around us. Harman definitely uses literature to do this. And he looks to literary characters as well. 'Characters, in the broadest sense, are objects,' he writes. 'Though we only come to know them through specific literary incidents, these events merely hint at a character's turbulent inner life--which lies mostly outside the work it inhabits, and remains fully equipped for sequels that the author never produced (p. 15).' Objects are more than what we do with them: 'Let 'object' refer to any reality with an autonomous life deeper than its qualities, and deeper than its relations with other things (p. 16).' They 'cannot be reduced to the definitions we give of [them], because then the thing would change with each tiny change in its known properties (p. 16).'
Objects define reality. Harman applies a simple reality test: 'unless a character gives rise to different interpretations, unless a scientific entity endures changed notions of its properties, unless a philosopher is entangled in contradictory assertions over one and the same concept, unless a new technology has unforeseen impact, unless a friend is able to generate and experience surprises, then we are not dealing with anything very real (p. 16).' So...now you know how to tell whether the things around you are real or not! Good to know.
Irony aside, the inclusion of characters in this list of objects is fascinating. It fits with our earlier stated intuitions about real works of art and literary success. The great work is a living world with an independent existence inhabited by unique objects. China Mieville's Bas-Lag trilogy is full of this sense of autonomous existence. Think of any of your favourite books and characters and you'll feel the same thing.
What is really interesting here is the link between fiction and reality. That link is a facet of one of Harman's main arguments: 'My thesis is that objects and weirdness go hand in hand (p. 16).' Fiction and reality are, in short, equally weird: 'Reality is made up of nothing but substances--and they are weird substances with a taste of the uncanny about them, rather than stiff blocks of simplistic physical matter. Contact with reality begins when we cease to reduce a thing to it properties or to its effect on other things (p. 17).' When we see it as having an 'autonomous life' and indescribable thingness. That is the core of its weirdness. It is something beyond our ken.
So reality itself is very weird. How very gothic! But then we already knew that, didn't we, my fellow gothlings?
Mieville's second book in his Bas-Lag trilogy, The Scar, is equally a success by these modest measures. This object illustrates another facet of the living world that is an object of art. This object is animated by objects. Each character here is an object with its own virtual life to live free from Mieville's machinations (I could say the same about Perdido Street Station but I find the objects in The Scar even more stunning out of pure personal preference and nothing more!). Uther Doul. The Lovers. Kruach Aum. The Ghosthead (who are these things from their freezing fiery world harnessing the wild, wierd and haunting powers of possibility?). The gryndylow. All the cast. We can fill out their backstories in our own imaginations. And give them destinies beyond the page. They exist in the same way anything exists...
How is that? Speculative realism is a new school of philosophy which is, well, too complicated to summarize briefly but let's just say that one part of it can be defined as 'object-oriented philosophy.' It is realistic, that is, it wants to return philosophy to speculation on the nature of the real world instead of getting lost in language. Looking at the nature of objects as non-human aspects of reality is a thing speculative realism does. And philosopher Graham Harman is one of the main proponents of this object-oriented approach.
Now really looking at objects is harder than it sounds because it means trying to think of them as independent and non-human things, which means going beyond the anthropocentric view to see the thingness of things. The Wikipedia article on Harman says it well when it describes how he 'affirms the autonomy of objects while aiming to 'allude' to their shadowy underground life and covert interactions by means of metaphor.' So allusion and metaphor are ways we can describe the indescribable objecthood of objects.
And literature as the main domain of allusion and metaphor can then be a tool to help us find a few hints and clues as to the nature of the objects around us. Harman definitely uses literature to do this. And he looks to literary characters as well. 'Characters, in the broadest sense, are objects,' he writes. 'Though we only come to know them through specific literary incidents, these events merely hint at a character's turbulent inner life--which lies mostly outside the work it inhabits, and remains fully equipped for sequels that the author never produced (p. 15).' Objects are more than what we do with them: 'Let 'object' refer to any reality with an autonomous life deeper than its qualities, and deeper than its relations with other things (p. 16).' They 'cannot be reduced to the definitions we give of [them], because then the thing would change with each tiny change in its known properties (p. 16).'
Objects define reality. Harman applies a simple reality test: 'unless a character gives rise to different interpretations, unless a scientific entity endures changed notions of its properties, unless a philosopher is entangled in contradictory assertions over one and the same concept, unless a new technology has unforeseen impact, unless a friend is able to generate and experience surprises, then we are not dealing with anything very real (p. 16).' So...now you know how to tell whether the things around you are real or not! Good to know.
Irony aside, the inclusion of characters in this list of objects is fascinating. It fits with our earlier stated intuitions about real works of art and literary success. The great work is a living world with an independent existence inhabited by unique objects. China Mieville's Bas-Lag trilogy is full of this sense of autonomous existence. Think of any of your favourite books and characters and you'll feel the same thing.
What is really interesting here is the link between fiction and reality. That link is a facet of one of Harman's main arguments: 'My thesis is that objects and weirdness go hand in hand (p. 16).' Fiction and reality are, in short, equally weird: 'Reality is made up of nothing but substances--and they are weird substances with a taste of the uncanny about them, rather than stiff blocks of simplistic physical matter. Contact with reality begins when we cease to reduce a thing to it properties or to its effect on other things (p. 17).' When we see it as having an 'autonomous life' and indescribable thingness. That is the core of its weirdness. It is something beyond our ken.
So reality itself is very weird. How very gothic! But then we already knew that, didn't we, my fellow gothlings?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)