Things We Know that We Know; Things We Know that We Don't Know; Things We Don't Know that We Don't Know; (... and Things We Don't Know that We Know)

In chapter 4 (Nakayama reading) one of the "histories" explored is the Absent History. In its postmodern manifestation(s) through discipline (borrowing from Foucault), the absence of history, as a form of discipline, cannot be identified with particular institutions or by any specific manifestation. In the attempt of a society to absolve itself, to "explain" (often the indescribable) or affirm its dominance and legitimacy, it does not only remind its subjects (and the world) that constitutionally, institutionally and socially "things are working"; it also makes sure that certain histories must be invented, narrated; and then retold again. It also makes sure that the "absent" ones will remain absent; on a descriptive level through the silent consent - or rather, the consent to silence- of the mass media; and the lack of time -or interest- of the subjects. On a substantive level, through the language and stipulations in legislation (read carefully the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples [UN], where it is clearly stated that, no matter how many "rights" indigenous peoples may be granted, and no matter how many apologies they may receive, they still have no present or future legal claim to their original lands).
In the meantime, except from sporadic mentions in the media, absent histories comfortably hibernate (if their carriers are still alive somewhere), and thread by thread are becoming simulacra, like in Borges' torn shreds of a map where nobody recalls anymore who drew it, and what the territories on that map ever meant; but insist on referring to it so religiously, as only those who suffer from that sense of insufferable nostalgia for something they never really knew can feel; as if the map were a compass; or a valid point of reference.
The absent ones are being disciplined; so are the rest of the subjects. ".... one can speak of the formation of a disciplinary society, from a social quarantine, to an indefinitely generalizable mechanism of panopticism.... because the disciplinary modality has infiltrated  the other modalities, serving as an intermediary among them, linking them together.... and above all making it possible to bring the effects of power to the most elemental and distant parts. It assures an infinitesimal distribution of the power relations (from Panopticism, in Foucault's Discipline and Punish).

Discipline - Wikileaks, or how to persecute with the consent of the ones harmed.

Another version of absent history is the obscenity of ommission (as in the glorification of the concept of the Arab Spring, while Saudi Arabian troops freely entered Bahrain and violently neutralized the overwhelming uprising of the Qatari people; or the proxy war in Syria [conveniently renamed insurgence of the people against the government], while the Al' Awit [Shi'ite Muslims] are receiving help from Iran, and the Shunni Muslems from Saudi Arabia; or, more sadly, while the flowers of the Arab Spring are blossoming in "democracy"[a word defiled], Palestinians are consequently becoming a case study amidst academics, and absent peoples in the "news du jour"; shredded remains on a map that we still look in nostalgic amazement.

1. Black, Black Hills 

2. WikiLeaks - Amy Goodman, Julian Assange & Slavoj Zizek (2 of 9)

3. WikiLeaks - Amy Goodman, Julian Assange & Slavoj Zizek (3 of 9)

Short Hair = Dyke; Long Hair = Docile. Either way you're screwed.

     We've been talking a lot about identity and I thought I would continue along those lines, but through a newish lens.  We've talked about stereotypes and racism, we've even talked about sexism and gender stereotypes, but only a bit.  So, today I'm writing about hair, because whether you've thought about it or not, whether you've experienced it or not, hair says a lot about you - and people love to stereotype based on hair.  This topic is about all the isms...it shows up in all the isms.   When creating our first impressions about someone, hair plays a pretty significant role in our thought processes.  As Eddie Huang discusses in an interview about his new book, Fresh Off the Boat, it's not just white culture that creates tension in society, it's dominant culture.

Anjula Mutanda, relationship psychologist, TV presenter and author of Celebrity Life Laundry says, "long hair is still short hand for sexual attractiveness".

     I learned the hard, valuable way, that short hair was going to elicit a lot of interesting comments and feedback from friends, family and total strangers.  I'm pretty petite.  I'm not exactly voluptuous - in fact, I'm not.  Tinkerbell has more curves than me and she is a cartoon character.  I first cut my hair while backpacking alone during the extremely hot Mediterranean summer of 2002.  In an act of desperation and liberation, I went to the nearest salon and asked for pixie cut, and I loved it!  It never occurred to me that people might see my choice as an act of sexual defiance or that it would affect my love life, but the Daily Mail Online and Elle Magazine have a whole lot to say about this in their attempts to educate and warn women about any drastic actions they might be contemplating.  If you cut your hair, you've been forewarned, dominant culture has trained many brains to associate short hair with: lesbians, defiance, deviance, self-righteousness, lack of virility and libido, shunning sexuality, trying to repel men, a state of poverty (it's actually kind of expensive to get your hair cut every 3-4 weeks) or desperation, being ill, being a man (which is clearly not the same as being a lesbian), a woman who is dissatisfied with her sex life and therefor reclaiming power in the bedroom, and the list goes on.

Apparently our hair said it all:
My brother, the dirty gay hippy (according to my friends' parents) and the me, the so-called lesbian.  

     Myself, I loved having short hair and women would stop me on the El platform to ask for my stylists info, but more than a few men and even one professor felt eager to enlighten me about the consequences of my decision. At a party a male pointed out my non-voluptuous body type and cropped hair, called me a dyke and poored a drink on my head; my rugby coaches and probably a  few female teammates questioned my sexuality - the only redeeming factor - I "cleaned up better than any other rugger" and therefore impressed upon them with makeup and cute clothes that I was not a lesbian; the director of my theatre department asked/told me while reviewing head shots that I was androgynous and nearly uncastable and that I really need to consider my hair (hello - it's called a WIG) if I wanted to have a stage career.  In more way than one, men and women have gone out of their way to educate me about the negative consequences of cutting my hair - and while, yes, I can grow it out (luckily my hair grows fast) and I have options - cutting it the second time was harder - and I waited until I had a new job. But this isn't just about me, people are judging each and every one of us based on our hair.

     So, what does this have to do with dominant culture? Everything.  Almost every article I found is discussing the issue from a hetero-normative (dominant) culture stance and subjecting the rest of us to these views about hair. Plus, the stereotypes affect women with long hair, too.  Women with long locks are viewed as fertile, docile, desiring to be dominated, submissive both in and outside of the bedroom, but beware - if your hair is too long, you might not be taken seriously and therefore are not receiving the raises you deserve.  Forbes, Cosmo and online forums have a lot to say about work appropriate hair.  Basically, you might fit in one box, but you always have to sacrifice something and give up another box.

A few other examples to ponder - I'll let you think about these:

• Why are Rastafarians and Sikhs subjected to discrimination about their hair?  The former couldn't even win legal protection for their religion.
• Why are men with long hair considered dirty hippies while men with short hair are fine upstanding corporate banker types (and we should all love and trust them these days)?  
• Why did so many people spend hours blogging, tweeting and talking about Gabby Douglas' hair?  The girl wins three gold medals and women tore her apart for being nappy and for straightening her hair. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  
• My friend is undergoing chemo and before treatment she decided to chop her hair - much to the horror of 99% of her friends and family who told her it would be a mistake.  In her words - it is going to fall out anyways, and this way it'll be a whole less messier.  

Hair, not athleticism, dominated her three Olympic medals. 

So, HAIR, what is it all about?  Perhaps the dominant culture continues to serve a certain male type because of little things like hair.  We can try as much as we like to cut, grow  or color our hair to create the right impression, but the reality is, we have not reached equality and long as we play the hair game, we are not focused on the equality game.   

A few more good links:

• Does short hair mean women have gone off sex?
• Scarleteen: Sex ed for the real world - Women with short hair
• Jezebel - In defense of the short haired woman
• BlogHer - What does a woman's hair length say about her sexuality?
• Women wanting short haircuts are being discriminated against by paying twice as much as men
• Denmark was right to ban discrimination in hair salons

Chick-fil-A controversy leaves a bitter taste for some longtime fans

The following article is an opinion piece written for CNN on feelings regarding last year’s controversy regarding Chik-fil-A’s comments on same sex marriage, which led to the subsequent “Chik-fil-A Appreciation Day” and boycott of the fast food chain by many who were outraged by the comments.

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion-chick-fil-a-controversy-leaves-a-bitter-taste-for-some-longtime-fans/?hpt=hp_t3

In Martin and Nakayama chapter 5, Identity and Intercultural Communication, they bring up many types of identities. The two that are relevant in regards to the article, are religious identity and sexual identity. As defined by Martin and Nakayama, religious identity refers to the sense of belonging to a certain religious group and sexual identity refers to one’s identification with various categories of sexuality. When thinking about identity, I think many of us find ourselves spanning across many of these different categories that Martin and Nakayama refer to. What I find interesting in thinking about identity and this article is how sometimes, and maybe even more than just sometimes, we find that the groups that we identify can be in direct competition with one another. Most notably, the woman who wrote this article finds her identity as a lesbian and her identity as a Christian woman clashing. Although, perhaps for her they may not be clashing, but for what many people define what it means to be part of these groups come in direct competition of one another.

The whole situation that surrounded Chik-fil-A is outrageous to me. It is times like this that I find myself competing with my religious identity. I consider myself fairly religious, yet I suppose many of the people who lined up on “Chik-fil-A Appreciation Day,” wouldn’t because I don’t believe that same-sex marriage, in any way, shape or form is detracting from the sanctity of marriage. My best friend is a lesbian and I have every intention of being her maid-of-honor at her wedding because she deserves one just as much as anyone else.

This idea of identity is an interesting one. It’s hard when you find yourself with identities that don’t align and even harder when you try and reconcile them. Yet, it comes back to this idea of these cultural norms that we’ve created of what it means to have a certain identity and all the stereotypes that come along with it. Why can’t you be an African American and Republican or Catholic lesbian? When will we stop making so many rules about how you’re supposed to be and just let everyone be? 

The power of race in students' scores

   

The Power of Race

November 3, 2009 - 3:00am

By

Scott Jaschik

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/elite#ixzz2Jstueihq

    In Thomas J. Espenshade’s new book: No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life, he has raised several searches and interviews, trying to find out whether scores would be swayed according to the races, class ranks, castes and ethnicity groups. Besides, his findings also include the exploration on cross-culture interactions between students. The findings have come up with some ideas. Such as “More than half of black students and nearly one-third of Latino students who graduated from the colleges studied, for example, finished in the bottom quintile of their classes.” However, the author has preserved an attitude of neutrality by announcing that there is no clear conclusion for his findings.

    As I recall when Alexander stated an opinion about mass incarceration, he argued against “racial caste system” since “we may have classed in the United States, but we do not, many will insist, have anything in this country that resembles a ‘caste’”(Introduction, p12, Alexander). However, in Espenshade’s findings, He said “the table uses ACT scores for public institutions and SAT scores for privates. The "norm" score was considered white for the race section, and middle class for the class section.” In my opinion, Making one race or one class as a norm, and then fitting other races and colors into this norm is a kind of caste. Whichever that being considered below the norm will inevitably be put into a sub-rank. 

    Moreover, Espenshade’s has talked about the “advantages” and “disadvantages” of some groups of people. “The ‘advantage’ referred to…is what it would take to have equivalent odds of admission, after controlling for other factors. So the table's figure of a 3.8 black ACT "advantage" means that a black student with an ACT score of 27 would have the same chances of admission at the institutions in the study as a white student with a score of 30.8.” And when it comes to Asians, Espenshade said: “…such factors explain some of the apparent SAT and ACT disadvantage facing Asian applicants.” 

    On one hand, it reminds me of the “stereotype”. I still remember the picture of an Asian boy who wears thick glasses, holding a bunch of books. The score system, which treats diverse races differently, is subconsciously emphasizing and transmitting the information and the image that black students are less competitive than other students and Asians are book nerds. On the other, it also shows discrimination. Even Asian students did better in exams, they still have no superiority because of the equivalent odds of admission.

    What do you think after reading the article? Do you think racism exists in the scores? Do you agree with the “advantages” and “disadvantages” shown in the equivalent odds of admission have reinforced the stereotype to some extent? If you are able to make some differences of this system, you will keep it or modify it？

"Girls" and the Depiction of Minorities in Television and Film

Article: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/im-a-white-girl-why-girls-wont-ever-overcome-its-racial-problem/267345/

I found this article about race depictions in television shows and movies. It caught my attention because it addresses a very popular show currently on HBO called “Girls”. I am not sure if many of you watch this show and I have only seen one episode, but I do know that “Girls” is about white, affluent girls in their 20’s living in New York City and depicts the personal and professional struggles they encounter.

The article discusses how the first season of the show received criticism because it showed very few minorities, so the show writer show Lena Dunham addressed this by adding an African American character the second season. Rather than just adding more minority people in the show, she confronted racism head on in dialogue in which both characters discuss race and play on stereotypes of each other’s race. This is an awkward yet very realistic dialogue between the characters that shows how two young, modern people living in New York City approach race in a country where racism is said to not exist as much anymore. The author also discusses how Sandy, the African American character and boyfriend of Hannah, is not a “stereotypical” African American man because he is Republican and does not fit the typical profile of an African American man. This reminded me of Baratunde Thurston’s statements from his interview surrounding his book “How to be Black” (reading/listening for 1/30) regarding expectations around identity. Because the character is black, he is expected to be a democrat. It appears that the writers are trying to bring this stereotype to the forefront, but I am not sure whether they are combating it or reinforcing it by including it in the show.

The author then discusses the issue that writers have with racism and minority depiction in television and movies. I thought it was interesting how the writer said that, in regards to writers depicting characters of color that “if they don't, they're whitewashing; if they do, they're appropriating or misrepresenting”. It’s a relevant claim that we have seen again and again, with Django Unchained as a recent example of a film which was very controversial in its depiction of minorities by a white director. It does seem that white writers are in a tricky place, and the author discusses how white people writing about race aren’t enough to help the representation of minorities, and in the end they shouldn’t be held completely responsible for it. Rather, minorities should be present in the industry to depict their own races rather than relying on the white writers to do so.  The author also says that “along with holding these famous names accountable for offensive representations, the US cultural mainstream desperately needs to make more space for writers and directors of color.”

How can we go about making the space for writers and directors of color in order to include their works and viewpoints more? Is it the responsibility of movie and television companies or is it the responsibility of the viewer, or both?

Did you see the episode of “Girls” in which this scene described in the article takes place, and if so, how did you react to it? 

Toys and Gender Stereotypes

Boy-Friendly Easy Bake Oven: Teen Girl Goes to Bat for Little Brother

  

Click to watch this Easy Bake Oven Commercial from 2011

I remember hearing about this over winter break and thought it tied perfectly into our class discussions of gender stereotypes and identity. This past December, a teen girl asked Hasbro to create a more gender-neutral color for the popular toy, Easy Bake Oven. Her four-year-old brother who was interested in cooking complained that the pink or purple floral print ovens were only for girls. The teen sister also asked that Hasbro include boys in its Easy Bake Oven advertisements. Her petition received more than 40,000 signatures and she was taken into Hasbro to see a new black and silver model that has apparently been in the works for 18 months.

After reading this story, I found an Easy Bake Oven commercial from 2011 that made me cringe a little especially after our discussions in class. (Please View!!) There are no boys like the teen girl had mentioned, a mom is in the background, everything in sight is pink or purple and all the girls are dancing around the kitchen while they bake.

It seems to me like this commercial draws a solid line between girls and boys. And, as we’ve discussed, drawing a concrete line like that puts a lot of pressure on what it means to be “masculine” or “feminine” in today’s society. Harp, Loke and Bachmann in First Impressions of Sarah Palin: Pit Bulls, Politics, Gender, Performance and a Discursive Media (Re)contextualization, touch on this point when they critique Bem’s Gender Schema Theory. The authors state, “Gender schema theory explains how girls and boys exposed to cultural definitions of maleness and femaleness – embedded in discourse and social practices – will identify with them” (293). What is this commercial saying to boys who are interested in cooking? Or girls who aren’t interested in pink things, cooking, dancing, makeup, etc.? Or children struggling with their sexual identity and what society says they “should” or “shouldn’t” be interested in?

While some of its past commercials and marketing strategies are obviously cringe-worthy, I think Hasbro is taking a step in the right direction by making this toy in various colors and marketing to both boys and girls. I also think it’s great to see a girl take a stance on this issue at such a young age. What do you all think?

Django

I should preface this piece by admitting I haven't seen Django Unchained.  As a former film student, I'm certain that ten years ago I would have eagerly clamored into the theater if Tarantino had made Django made back then, anxious to talk with other film students about the chances he takes in his use of dialogue and violence, and how bold his casting choices were.  Today, I find myself weary of many of the Tarantinoisms that impressed me so much when I was younger, and more aware of how his narcissism might be the true source of his bold choices, rather than the creative foresight I used to attribute it to.  Still, he's one of a handful of filmmakers today that consistently create films that are, for one reason or another, culturally significant and it's hard not to admire how each moment in his films is intentional; when you watch a Tarantino film, you know that everything your seeing and hearing is there for a reason.  His broad range of influences (blacksploitation, anime, martial arts, etc.) lead him to create films that are vulnerable to criticism -- not criticism of quality nor his ability as a filmmaker, but about a potential lack of sensitivity concerning race and gender.  Quentin Tarantino is a white, American man, and his films tend to use language, stereotypes, and violence in way that comes off as either satirical or offensive, depending on the the interpreter.

Django Unchained is particularly problematic because it is focuses directly on slavery.  In class the other day I referenced this article, which references several important lenses by which people have been viewing this movie.  Spike Lee has been outspoken in his condemnation of Tarantino's flippant use of 'the n word" in the past, and he's not the only one who finds this trend distasteful.   If Lee's main complaint is that Tarantino's characters' (both white and black) cavalier use of the word might destigmatize it in the eyes of his viewers, he might be a little less offended by its use in Django since, by all accounts, it is very much used as a slur.  Because Tarantino has been heavily influenced by the blackspoitation films of the '70s, it might be easy to attribute his propensity for using the 'n word' to the material he draws inspiration from.  If this is true, is it okay for him to use controversial racial language just because he was influenced by a culture that uses that same language?  Would it make a difference if only the black characters in his films used the word when speaking with each other? When, if ever, is it okay to use that word?

If you get a chance, take a look at the interview referenced in the article, starting at at minute 14 or so.  Jake Hamilton (that guy would totally be named Jake Hamilton) is trying to ask Samuel L. Jackson a question about the way Tarantino uses 'the n word' and Jackson refuses to answer until Hamilton says the word.  It's suuuuuuuper awkward and pretty difficult to watch.  Hamilton never actually says it and eventually they awkwardly move on.  It really made me wonder how I would react in that situation.

A couple other things:

-It seems significant to me that the existence of this movie (and more pointedly, who made this movie) has generated such passionate discourse, when his previous film, Inglorious Basterds (in which a rogue band of American Jews kill Hitler and burn an entire movie theater filled with famous Nazis) generated very little.  If it's irresponsible for Tarantino to make a movie about a slave murdering slave owners, does the same thing hold true for a gentile making a film about Jews murdering Nazis?
-One of the main characters in Django is a white doctor named Dr. King Schultz.
-William Styron (a white man) wrote Confesssions of Nat Turner, which is a fictionalized account of the Virginian slave revolt.  Do you think Styron's book and Tarantino's film deserve similar criticism?