As we discussed in Peter Lee's blog posting last week, the Olympics is a celebration of the best athletes of different nations of the world coming together on an international platform and the cooperation of our diverse world.
Key word- diverse. Johnny Weir is a male figure skater for the United States Olympic team. He placed 6th in these Olympic games, whilst performing in black and pink attire. He has been referred to as 'flamboyant' in numerous news publications and has been perpetuated as presenting a less-than-manly representation of male figure skating.
Two Canadian commentators came under fire for their comments on Weir's performance. He was deemed a bad example of 'male' figure skaters. They criticized his costume and his 'body language' and suggested that he should take a 'gender test' in order to ensure that he truly should be competing against other males. A fellow Olympican (a female runner from South Africa) actually underwent these tests after speculation that she wasn't a woman. Surprise- she was!
I think this brings up an interesting point when we look at the construction of gender. Is it right that we have male events and female events and that the rules and regulations vary based on the assumptions regarding the strength and abilities of those in each gender? What does it mean when commentators favor a certain athlete for his masculinity if he's a male but the opposite for a female? And how does this bring tension to the 'authentic' representation of a nation when more than just national identity comes into play?
Idris Elba is a British actor who has appeared in both British and American productions. Elba grew up in Canning Town, East London where he found his passion for acting. Elba was born and raise in Canning Town to a Sierra Leonean father and a Ghanaian mother. After receiving his training in theater he starred Many supporting roles on British television such as The Bill, Degrees of Error, The Ruth Rendell Mysteries, and The Governor. However he earned his big break when he joined the cast of the soap opera Family Affairs and opening the doors for him. He then went on to major American TV shows such as Dangerfield and starring major American movies such as Obssesion and This Christmas. Ong would argue Elba is a great example of flexible citizenship because he is a privilledged because he was able to move to a new country and use his acting skills to put him in prominent status so he could avoid responsibilities more permannet residents would have to follow. Do you believe Elba is able to Co-exist in the states and avoid the responsibilties of a more permanet resident? Is his cultural background negotiable because of his status and his ability to blend with other Americans? Does his job make his citizenship flexible?
So I could not help but think of the "We Are The World" remake when I was reading George Lipsitz article about Hip-Hop, post-colonial era, and this concept of "diasporic intimacy". Although, this remake and motives behind it are questionable, it just amazed me when I listened to the original version versus the remake and I cannot help but laugh in the middle of the song and its "Hip-Hop Breakdown" (auto-tune and all) from Hip-Hop artists like Lil Wayne, LL Cool J, T-Pain, Kanye West, Akon, Swizz Beats, Wyclef Jean, Snoop Dogg, and Will.i.am.
Lipsitz states in his article about "diasporic intimacy" where social movements, like Hip-Hop, are a response to global oppression that links cultural production and reception among people of African descent in the Caribbean (Haiti), the U.S, Europe, and African. I found this article and this song amazing because it really illustrates just how diasporic Hip-Hop is and how it was used to help people in Haiti, a country that has had its own devastating histories in this "post-colonial" era.
The song title itself explains the significance that Hip-Hop has gained throughout the African diaspora..."We Are The World" = Hip-Hop in its literal state. Quincy Jones and Lionel Ritchie must have known this as well, since it would seem rather odd to remake a song titled "We Are The World" and not have another representation of Hip-Hop present in the song or video. The fact that this "international dialogue" between African-descended people through Hip-Hop from U.S artists to the devastated African-Haitians is acknowledged in the song and video proves that even though Hip-Hop culture may have started in New York, Hip-Hop's roots come from in Haiti, the rest of the Caribbean, Africa, and Europe.
Musician Matthew Paul Miller also known as Matisyahu is a great example of how music allows one to claim citizenship. Miller is a Jewish American who is a reggae musician who is best known for Known for mixing Jewish themes with Reggae, Rock, and hip hop sounds.
Miller was born in West Chester, PA and later moved to White Plains New York with his family. New York is where he found his passion for music initially from following the rock band “Phish”. Miller has released over three albums and travel globally to places such as United States, Canada and Europe. Miller songs are mostly in English however he does manage to include a few words of Hebrew and Yiddish in his song. He also mixes in contemporary styles of rap and beat-boxing as well as the traditional Hazzan style. His music is closely compared early dancehall reggae stars such as Barrington Levy. Why is it that a Jewish American man from Pennsylvania can mix three distinct genres of music and make it globally acceptable? Why is it acceptable for him to perform these genres without any cultural connection? Does the fact that he is not white, Jamaican or black make his music any less authentic. Is this flexible citizenship at its best? Ong would argue this is flexible citizenship at its best here you have Jewish man blending different cultures and styles while being socially accepted. Here is a link to Miller’s myspace page so you can get idea of what he sounds like.
http://www.myspace.com/matisyahu
There is something about the arts and citizenship that is peculiar. It would seem that some use the arts to claim citizenship while others see the arts as an unclaimable culture by country. So this week I wanted to bring up the band Hsu-nami, a progressive rock band that features the sounds of an "erhu" (sort of a Chinese violin) instead of lead vocals. I happened to do an interview with their lead erhu player a while back and thought their story exemplified the ideas of flexible identity and the arts.
Jack moved to the U.S. as an adolescent and left his original plans of going into business to pursue music. Today he plays the erhu as Hsunami's lead melody. Their sound is very much like that of other heavier rock bands and quite honestly, so is their lifestyle. Their unique sound is derived particularly from creating this "East meets West" sound, as they refer to it. Even more interesting, the 2008 Olympic summer games featured their song at the end of the Chinese Vs. Angola basketball game. What does it mean for Hsunami to cross and be marketed to other nations' audiences by blending two cultures during the Olympic games? The games promote peace through sportsmanship and competition. How does playing Hsunami's music in the stadium complicate this? Ong's article brings up the idea of flexible citizenship. How does Jack, being a New Yorker, immigrant, and leader of a progressive rock band connect to Ong? How does the music, being a blended and innovated version of rock, being used in the Olympics, relate to Cuban salsa and Japanese salsa dancing? We have been talking about authenticity. Hsunami sort of exemplifies this crossing and blending of cultures and styles. Their music however tries to deny any sort of question of authenticity by claiming a new sound. What could their sound and marketing mean for the future of global heavy metal in relation to salsa? What does this internationalization of their music mean for their identities as a heavy metal band in New York? Here is a link to their myspace page so you can hear what they sound like. http://www.myspace.com/hsunami
In light of this weeks discussion on Authenticity and Hybridity, of cultures, though mainly focusing on the subaltern culture context, I find that we are the midst of one of the world's greatest displays of cultural authenticity. Especially the authentic identity of the national identity and who gets to speak for these national cultures, or rather what constitutes one to be the voice of a national identity, or rather authenticity. That display being that we are all indoctrinated to believe as one of the world's largest displays world unity and national competition, the Olympics, more specifically the Winter Olympics.
One of the main issues, that we seemed to conflict over in class, is who has the right to be the voice of culture, does it have to the culture themselves that provides the voice, or can some other outside influence provide the voice. In light of that, we come across a interesting situation during the Olympics, when those that represent their countries are supposedly from that country, which is technically true, since almost all the athletes are citizens of the country they represent, but here comes the interesting part. What is to be said of those will dual citizens. Are they allowed to represent a country that they never grew up in, just because they have citizenship.
I first came across this article on the weblog Angry Asian Man, a blog on all things Asian American. Which linked me to this article. Basically, a set of three siblings from the United States are all competing in this year's Winter Olympics, but they're not competing for the United States, even though they spent the majority of their lives in the United States and are citizens of the United States. Yet, because of certain technicalities they are allowed to compete for other nations. Two of the siblings are allowed to compete for Japan, because the siblings all hold dual nationalities, both in the United States and Japan. The third is competing for Georgia, on a technicality, her partner is of Georgian nationality.
However, all three siblings are only competing for these nations because they are not good enough to compete for the United States. So, how is it that these three athletes are representing nations, where they did not grow up. How are they the voice for these nations? Is it an authentic representation of these nation? Should it be allowed to be an authentic representation of these nations?
Adam Krims presents an interesting case study on Cree rap music in his text Rap Music and the Poetics of Identity, which I found interesting to read in relation to our discussion of hybridity (though Krims attests his own ambivalence to the concept).
Krims is primarily interested in the relation and tension between rap as global music and rap as local music. As the geographical origin of rap music is typically traced to New York, artists functioning outside of this locale have to grapple with the authenticity issue: "the presence of New York often becomes a matter of the effects of its absence: for artists who arose outside the New York/ Los Angeles axis ... have long imprinted their own authenticity as local, geographically based, and specifically in oppositional relation to New York. ... what a non-New York MC or group lacks in linkage to hip-hop's origins, it receives in the projection of local authenticity."
The Cree case study I find especially interesting. The Cree are a First Nations people in Canada, that is they are Native American. (This preferred appellation is rife with ideological issues related to 'purity' and thus 'hybridity', but perhaps we'll leave that for another day.) Here the Cree are not only having to negotiate being native and being Canadian, but they must also negotiate their appropriation African-American cultural forms.
While in the throes of mourning the tragic denouement of the 1997 film Selena, I push past the tears and the hiccupping sobs of watching my favorite Tejana performer, portrayed by my favorite contemporary Latina artist, DIE. Yep, Selena was the first Chicana artist to make it big in what was traditionally called CHICANO music. I want to talk about her identity as a “Tejana”—in the 1700s, much of what is now Texas was settled by Spanish descendants. The sort-of hybridity begins to make itself obvious. And can perhaps be best explained by this short clip from the film Selena.
In this clip, we see Abraham, Selena’s father talking about being Mexican-American, and what it means, not only in America, but in Mexico! You have to be more Americans than Americans and more Mexican than Mexicans! He says “Our family has been here for centuries, but they treat us as if we just swam across the Rio Grande!” In the Kraidy article, we talk about how the mestizaje identity largely began as an imperialist-led movement to talk about the inter-marriage of South Americans and Spanish people.
Hybridity is the study of multi-ethnic demographics bumping and rubbing. What is Kraidy’s discourse on purity and how does it relate to Abraham’s concerns about traveling to Mexico for Selena to perform?
Above is a photograph from the National Geographic Society Image Collection, a photography milestone. It depicts a Zulu bride and groom in South Africa, and was National Geographic magazine’s first inclusion of a bare-breasted woman. (This picture was featured in a 1896 issue; the magazine’s first issue was in 1888.) The Society felt it necessary to show indigenous tribes “as they are.” However, who’s to say “how subaltern groups are” if it’s the dominant culture narrating their story for them?
Here is the story of an Amazon Rainforest tribal group being photographed, or contacted, by the “outside world.” Members of the tribe are seen in their everyday space, but are pointing their bow and arrows at the photographer who was hovering overhead in a helicopter. There are more untouched communities like this one than one might think. As the article states, “Brazil’s National Indian Foundation suspects there are 68 uncontacted tribes in Brazil with only 24 of those being confirmed.” This Foundation believes that making such photos public is a means to protect the groups. This particular forest community is threatened from the actions of illegal logging. Without such indigenous cultures being recognized, it is possible that they disappear without anyone ever knowing they existed to begin with. It is interesting to look at the uncivilized/civilized dichotomy here, as well as the outsider/insider dichotomy, in that to us, these groups are “others” to be possibly recognized, and to them, we are “others,” who for all they know could be out to kill them.
Building off of the Griffiths, “The Myth of Authenticity” reading, once an authentic subaltern group becomes exposed to the general awareness, it is prone to becoming a “fetishized cultural commodity.” The way media represents subaltern groups also may frame the way they are perceived. Further, subaltern groups are not homogenous, and often have flourishing diversity within; so which subgroup(s) of the subaltern would be recognized? If media itself is a socially constructed institution, would a subaltern representation/voice it presents be truly authentic? Photographs, like those above, are interesting to think about in this sense. Although one might say a photograph is a reflection of reality, it really is a representation of reality; what is photographed is historically-specific and is tied to larger discourses.
When the narrator highlighting a subaltern group derives from the dominant discourse, how can the authentic voice/true subaltern discourse be represented and legitimated authentically within the dominant discourse? Due to powerlessness, the way the subaltern voice is “spoken” is vulnerable to being conditioned by the dominant discourse. Another concept to think about is the re-instilling of a representation. How can an authentic representation disrupt the dominant discourse to replace the older/false/yet “appropriated” representation?
Do you think it is appropriate for us to disrupt undisrupted indigenous tribes? Even if our intentions are to protect, are we doing more harm than good? In the article, it says, often after a tribe being “contacted” diseases can spread posing great danger to their existence.
A more ideal intersection of commodifying difference and cultural citizenship I can not imagine. (I really recommend watching ALL videos of the "Target: Women" series. They are hugely critical of the pervasive standards of womandom and its own "cultural citizenship" guidelines. They are also hilarious. Tragic, but definitely hilarious.) "Target: Women" is, in my opinion, a very intelligent exercise in analysing how media TARGETS women in most every way, including dating advice, how to diet, and how to deal with our doofy husbands. In this episode, "Target: Women, a special on Ladyfriends", Sarah Haskins talks about media's role in constructing the way women have relationships with other women. In "Toward a Feminist Analytics of the Global Economy", Sassen links the irony of menial labor being labeled as unimportant when it is actually the force that keeps the proverbial ball rolling. "In the day-to-day work of the leading services complex dominated by finance, a large share of the jobs involved are low pay and manual, many held by women and immigrants. Although these types of workers and jobs are never represented as part of the global economy, they are in fact part of the infrastructure of jobs involved in running and implementing the global economic system."
Given this claim--that women are part of the low paid demographic, doing menial tasks; I want to know what you guys think about these short clips that talk about media and women.
What is media telling women? What do you think about this?
How do the media' goals (and who makes up the media--corporations? the state?) relate to the commodification of "gendered" products?
And how is any of this an example of "cultural citizenship"?
(P.S. I gave you guys so many questions to think about, because I know that you are going to have SO much fun with these videos. I really encourage to watch as many as you have time for! There are at least 20 listed on the youtube related links...)
As I was listening to our class discussion on commodifying difference and cultural citizenship I could help but think of one specific Jim Bean commercial, where this very exotic woman with a very thick accent is stating what she would like in a man. If you listen to the things she mentions it depicts your typical beer drinking, football playing, stripper watching American male. At the end of the commercial they label this woman as the “Perfect Girlfriend.” I thought about how we mentioned language in class and how important it is in order for one to be a cultural citizen and this woman who is the ideal woman according to the marketing team for Jim Bean can barely speak English. Using what we discussed in class what else can be seen in this commercial or what are your thoughts on how her exoticness and her difference being commodified?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Citizenship. What is it? According to Dictionary.com Citizenship can be defined as 1.The state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen; and 2.The character of an individual viewed as a member of society; behavior in terms of the duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen: an award for good citizenship.Over the last semesters as I have gone deeper and deeper into Latina/o Studies and I have really seen how citizenship is viewed here in the United States.Citizenship, as we all know, is a huge dilemma within the Latino group in the United States. Not only documented citizenship, but the even bigger dilemma is the concept of cultural citizenship, the notion that you have to embody the United States culture, whatever that might be; to be a true citizen.
What makes you a complete citizen here in the United States? Is it the documentation you carry? Or is it how you carry yourself, how you speak, how you dress, what music you listen to.You can have the following; four guys standing on a corner two citizens and two immigrants, two white males and two Latinos and surely the Latino men will be the ones questioned for citizenship even if they are the documented pair.It’s because you can be a Mexican American born here in the United states; but if you are brown, speak Spanish, embrace your background openly to the public, and you do not embody the American culture you are not truly assimilated and you can’t possibly be a citizen.
I remember reading an article in my LLS 100 class, which mentioned that the United States always aspires to look like a uniformed country. Through the media, society says that being American is X and if you are not anything remotely close to X there is always a question of citizenship.From personal experiences I can say being Puerto Rican, my mom and I have experienced first hand exclusion because of the way we look and talk.I remember as a child my mom was constantly being hassled for her social security card and documentation because at first glance we did not appear to be citizens. I really didn’t understand why my mother would get so upset, replying “que se creen estos, que porque so negrita y hablo español no puedo ser de aqui, ¿que? nunca estudiaron geografia; I’m Puerto Rican hello…!” (What do these people think because I’m dark and I speak Spanish I can’t be from the U.S., what? They never took geography; I’m Puerto Rican Hello…!).While reading this weeks article I couldn’t help but think back to all my class, all that I have learn and read and wonder what our class thinks is a true American citizen?In your personal opinion, is there really cultural citizenship or is it just a matter of documentation? And if there is cultural citizenship, is it something that can be obtain or is it something that just comes natural to a person?Does it include a person straying away from their background, leaving their culture behind?
Toby Miller asserts that "[t]he model liberal citizen is a clear-headed, cool subject who knows when to set aside individual and sectarian preferences in search of the greater good." An interesting counter-example of this model citizen was a small group of folks in the early Norwegian Black Metal scene. Their aesthetics are based on brutality and repugnance. As Euronymous (member of Mayhem until his murder in 1993) puts it, "It's very important that the music is filled with dark moods and that the music smells of destruction ... [Black Metal is] something raw and evil ..."
The scene is infamous for its extra-musical activities of church-burning and intra-group murder along with their over-the-top garb of spikes, inverted cross necklaces, and make-up, topped with a menacing scowl (a veritable wealth of signification). These musicians can easily be read as typifying the antithesis of the citizen (the citizen being "self-limiting, self-controlling").
As Miller goes on to claim "that consumption and citizenship have become mutually constitutive," it is also interesting to hear Euronymous's comments on the commercialization of the Black Metal genre: "I think that the main problem is that Death Metal* is now commonly available and accepted, the underground is dead. In the ancient days, it was extremely unpopular and extreme to play in a band like Mayhem, most people hated us ... Now Death Metal is commercial, and bands like Cadaver have even played gigs for their parents. This is not good. This does not help the underground, it's killing it. Real Death Metal should be something normal people are afraid of, not something mothers can listen to." Consumptability leads to de-authentication. Or, perhaps, consumptability leads to citizenship, the very thing that the scene may be read as eschewing.
*At the time of this interview (1991), genre terminology was not codified. Here we may read "Death" as "Black" though they are no longer considered synonymous. Mayhem is now considered Black Metal, though Euronymous earlier in the interview says, "I play in a Death Metal band, or maybe you should call it Black Metal." The animosity Euronymous expresses may foretell this genre bifurcation.
Last weeks blog postings brought up a lot of interesting arguments about race, fashion, authenticity, agency and commodities. When trying to think of a topic related to these arguments I thought of the growing culture of urban fashion and streetwear in major cities like Chicago.For example, Leaders 1354 (LDRS), is a streetwear store that opened up in 2002 by a group of African American males on the Southside of Chicago, in one of the cities most historic neighborhoods, Hyde Park.Because of the stores increasing popularity in providing clothes of major Streetwear labels from other cities as well as creating their own brand and designing their own clothes and fitted hats, LDRS was able to open up two more stores, one store in the hip Northside neighborhood of Wicker Park as well as a store in the heart of downtown Chicago.When LDRS decided to close down two of their stores, they decided to keep the downtown Chicago store, which caters to and is most accessible to all people, allover the city.
Streetwear, in the city of Chicago at least, is an evolving marker of “blackness,” as well as a marker of a “true city kid,” that is a racialized fashion style becoming increasingly commodified by people of all races such as Latinos, Asians and Caucasians.Streetwear, and the culture attached to it, has become an experience that many people from ages 18-30 can identify with.Today young designers all over the city of Chicago are creating their own brands and designing their own streetwear clothing lines. As the pre-blogs have pointed out about the idea of sagging jeans, why commodify this style or why commodify this culture or the experiences attached to it?
From the LDRS website they say, “Our vision when we open remains the same today, “Stay ahead of the curve!”. Our interest outside of retail involves art, music, and everything that involved freshness. Already taste makers as a whole, our staff had the fore site to blend those elements.What LEADERS 1354 as a company stays constantly in search of every slice of vibrant life that exists in Chicago. Hipsters, scenesters, rappers, skaters, breakers, and artist. Every person on the planet feeds off of energy so we involve ourselves in the most positive energy that we can find. This is where a loyal customers becomes friends and new customers become loyal. LEADERS 1354 is a barbershop in a sense. Away from the barbershop.”
Just how sagging jeans signifies a certain “gangster” lifestyle,” streetwear signifies a different type of “gangster.” Streetwear is seen as a lifestyle that consists of hip/hop, art, parties, doing big things for yourself, fitted jeans, fitted hats, fitted tees and a fresh new pair of kicks.My question is, has streetwear been commodified and is streetwear more acceptable in cities because it seems to be an “upgrade” from Americans original understanding of what a “gangster” lifestyle is?Has streetwear become extremely popular in cities because it doesn’t consist of baggy jeans and is not attached to this dangerous and threatening persona? Has streetwear culture and fashion become a place of self-representation? Where people of all races can fit in and feel comfortable in?
Welcome to the course blog for "Commodifying Difference." We are exploring how ethnic, racial, gender, sexual and religious differences are negotiated through the media and popular culture.
As we discussed in Peter Lee's blog posting last week, the Olympics is a celebration of the best athletes of different nations of the world coming together on an international platform and the cooperation of our diverse world.
