You don't have to watch Glee (a musical series on Fox) to be aware of the determinedly diverse cast. The high school glee club ensemble includes students of varying ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientation, and level of physical ability. It includes students from both ends of the high school popularity food chain, as football players and cheerleaders are recruited and continuously feign reluctance to be on the team. The overarching theme of this show, aside from the pure entertainment value of Bon Jovi/Usher mashup performances (admittedly not for everyone), is that of inclusion.

The show doesn’t shy away from issues regarding these differences, and it somewhat formulaically addresses each one in turn. In the season finale, for example, the team competed in a sectionals tournament against an all-girls reform school and a school for the deaf. Yet I can’t help but wonder why, despite these efforts, every character that doesn’t fit the characteristics of the majority is relegated to the sidelines. The photo included above (click to view the whole photo) demonstrates the careful balance of acceptability that’s been crafted: the four main characters (center-right) are white, heterosexual, and non-disabled. Other characters on the periphery that also meet these requirements include girlfriends, wives, and best friends/love-triangle rivals of the main characters; it would seem that any interracial relationships including any the main characters are off limits.

The sense of inclusiveness is one of the major commodities of the series, yet it is arguably only within pre-determined “acceptable” limits. This photo is probably enough to discuss without having seen the show, but full episodes and episode recaps are on hulu.

Sagging Pants, Sagging Identities

After reading both the Watts and Halter pieces regarding identity and the desire in Anglo-America to commodify and economically benefit from ethnic members of America's coolness; I think I was more surprised at the ease with which Americans consume this version of faux ethnic interaction and style. Although style may be considered limited to clothing, it's also the way that the clothing is worn in conjunction with the general overall desire for that look. The photograph that's accompanying this blog contribution is one of a white male in baggy jeans. Watts stated that "The point that we are making here is that these statements posit as prima facie evidence for the existence of a color-blind society the fact that white folks claim identification with black (mediated) experiences." Baggy jeans signify the "gangsta" lifestyle which is now a look that's considered cool and has an added adaptation of "rocker" as long as a chain is attached to it.

In the Watts article specifically, it was discussed that not only had the modification of the greeting between African-American males become atopical and was now socially acceptable, but also that it was white America's mini effort at acculturating itself to ethno-America. I am intrigued that no one considered this thievery or even a mockery of some sort, nearly consistent with media black face. The Halter article also spoke of how there seems to be a developing montage of blurring the lines between what's "black" versus things culturally "white". I feel that the dichotomy being drawn via these media actions is slowly dissipating the line between the cultural identities of black and white. Saggy pants are now socially acceptable on whites, but not formally acknowledged nor appreciated from black males. My question is what does that say about where we're going? Why are certain things okay for some and definitely not others (cliché at best, but necessary to pose).

Fear of a Black Venus

In Spectacle of the Other Stuart Hall writes, "Representation is a complex business and, especially when dealing with 'difference', it engages feelings, attitudes and emotions and it mobilizes fears and anxieties in the viewer, at deeper levels than we can explain in a simple, common-sense way." So I ask you, in a world where women tennis stars are paid millions to wear as little as possible on the courts, what is underlying the public hysteria surrounding Venus Williams 2010 Australian Open outfit, an outfit that she designed for herself under her label?

It appears that the spectacle of the black female bootie threatens the spectra of upper-class respectability surrounding the predominantly white sport of tennis, a sport that has only had 2 black elite female stars in the last 20 years -- Venus and Serena Williams. What I find truly humorous and troubling is that tennis fans and the mainstream media find it plausible that one of the world's best women's athlete would actually go on international television flashing her butt and vagina. What does this say about the contemporary representational status of black urban femininity and sexuality?

Despite their athletic accolades and millions, Venus and Serena will always be "othered" as declassé black girls from Compton Los Angeles. To be a black woman means to be always outside of heteronormative respectability.