I think it does. The ideology underlying that post descends from the same insular tradition; it’s basically the watered-down, mass-market version. It’s visible to the world at large, but it isn’t tested against outside reality nor open to outside ideas.
It identifies an element in the text (displays of wealth commonly mentioned in song lyrics and videos), imposes its own interpretation on that element (displays of wealth by black artists), supposes a hierarchy based on that interpretation (“So why shit on black folks?”), and forms a judgment based on that hierarchy (“I’m gonna take a guess: racism”), ultimately condemning the work and the artist herself based on something three tenuous links away from the text.
Much like the author of that article, you’re imposing an interpretation on the text and proceeding as if it’s the only possible one: that the examples were chosen as stereotypes of black culture, rather than, say, as the typical displays of wealth that the teenage singer and her peers are exposed to through pop culture.
The author asks: “Why aren’t we critiquing wealth by taking hits at golf or polo or Central Park East? Why not take to task the bankers and old-money folks who actually have a hand in perpetuating and increasing wealth inequality?”
And one answer that comes to mind is that the poor New Zealand teen narrating the song probably spends a lot more time listening to American music than playing golf or polo, or visiting Central Park, or grumbling about subprime mortgages and the stagnation of wages relative to productivity.
If that tiny part of the post is the only part you found defensible, I think you’re proving my point.
But also, I think my observation above about the Lorde article applies to what you’ve written here as well. You identify some harsh words that sometimes appear in some of the material being criticized, interpret them as slurs against women (despite their use in other contexts) and as defining elements of the material (despite their only appearing in a subset of it), suppose a hierarchy in the material (transferring a belief about a gender-based societal power hierarchy onto the actors, by way of the gender-specific interpretation previously imposed on the words), and ultimately arrive at the absurd notion that sexual expression between two men is an attack on women. This is like playing “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon”, except with the rule that each actor only has to remind you of the next one.
No wonder their horoscopes never come true!
Yes, I’ve been reading the Onion as long as they’ve had a website. I linked that article as an example of forming an over-the-top absurd argument using techniques similar to those that formed the slightly-less-absurd arguments before it.
I’ll start by saying that my point was never that I agreed with every sentence in the linked article, or that every argument they make is sound. My point was that through discussion like we’re having that literary and cultural criticism is indeed capable of differentiating a erroneous argument with no basis in text or fact from a well-reasoned one with a lot of evidence backing it up. This process of criticism is slow, iterative, and requires a lot of research and synthesis. However, it is not arbitrary and pointless just because the conclusions drawn do not contain an equals sign in the middle.
I am absolutely not imposing any interpretation on the text as though it is the only one. I agree with your reasoning here, and I’d add there is an additional line of inquiry in how and why someone like Lorde has internalized those stereotypes, and how America produces, consumes, and exports a specific image of black culture, and why that is. Which is to say, when producers and advertisers and labels get together to promote music, what sorts of music do they say will sell and why? I’m not saying this article is a great analysis of the song, of Lorde’s music, or of hip-hop. It’s a pretty terrible analysis. But you linked to it to imply that the point itself was invalid, because a weak article can make it, but I think it merits discussion.
Again, I’m not necessarily defending the article. You linked it to imply that the idea is patently ridiculous.
There is a large body of evidence of those words (bitch, for instance) being used from a historical context up through the present day as slurs against women. If you are asserting that they are not, the burden of proof shifts to you. I would also argue that their use in other contexts (dog breeding, for instance) does not invalidate this.
No, this is describing specific instances of use, and examining the reasons for the use of those words in a cultural/gender context. Whether or not those reasons are due to a deeper undercurrent in that subculture is a different argument.
I don’t really know how to respond to this, the idea of gender-based power dynamics being present in society, in sex, and in porn is not generally in debate given the number of phenomena in society that has been observed to support this theory.
You use words like “impose” or “transferring a belief,” but what is being done here is taking information (data) and attempting to find a line of reasoning (theory) that fits them. If you don’t agree with the conclusion, then you’re free to formulate your own that interprets the data better.
No, this is a fairly straightforward line of logical reasoning, you just don’t agree with the premises:
Words like bitch are slurs against women
Slurs are used as a verbal means of one group to establish social power over another
In this act between two men, a slur against women is used out of its usual context
There is a specific dominant and submissive power dynamic at work in this act
Conclusion: The use of misogynist slurs in gay porn seeks to transpose the social power of that slur to a new context, and “feminize” the man in the submissive position.
The other things the post and the asker state, whether this applies to “all” instances, the generalizations made, those are beyond the scope of a Tumblr ask, and I’m not going to defend or refute those. My point is simply that you stated that the very idea was absurd, and that there was no logical relationship between the points being made. I’ve tried to elucidate those into logical assertions that are being used in an A implies B type relationship. If you don’t agree with one of the assertions, then of course you won’t agree with the conclusion. But which part of the logical process is absurd?
In that case, you may have Missed The Point that it is not about the idea of cultural criticism in general, but specifically deconstructionism. There’s a reason the article went with a postmodern critical theory grad student as its hyperbolic example; as a discipline, it is infamous for excessive jargon, and using complicated language to obscure relatively simple conclusions. Even as someone with a background in lit, I often have to roll my eyes at how self-referential the discussion of critical theorists get, which is what the article was making fun of. Critical theory of the sort the Onion article was referencing is very, very different from, say, English Literature.
That’s not to say there isn’t some good stuff there, like the idea that analysis and criticism is tainted by the social and historical context of the critic. One historian said of the way that the fall of the Roman Empire had been attributed to so many different things over the centuries: what a historian blames it on says more about himself than it does about Rome.
Unless you have some evidence that this descends from critical theory rather than things like the NAACP’s 1949 campaign about stereotypes?
Also this:
Let’s not pretend that Cristal, Maybachs, and gold teeth are mainstays of pop culture in general. Do you find them in country music? A quick google of “Cristal lyrics” and “Maybach lyrics” will demonstrate that these are stereotypes of black music.
And it’s a bit odd to suggest that the poor New Zealand teen’s only images of wealth are going to come from American popular music beamed from overseas. Are we suggesting that the culture has no images of wealth? What about the Hollywood red carpet? What about the nominal head of state of New Zealand, the Queen of England? Isn’t it a bit odd that in a song called “Royals” a subject of the British Royal Family isn’t singing about the Royal Family’s conspicuous displays of wealth? Why not Rolls Royces and Bentleys, which are what the actual royals drive?
But it seems to me like the underlying issue is that you’re arguing that all that matters is what Lorde (or any other author) intended, and that if she didn’t intend to be racist that’s OK. And that’s not the point. Things, you will admit, can have harmful effects that were not intended. Pointing out that something perpetuates nasty racial stereotypes is pointing out harmful effects. Whether the artist intended those harms is not the most important question here.
There’s a huge difference between your additional line of inquiry here (paraphrased, “This song reminds me of hip-hop, and that makes me wonder why hip-hop with these stereotypical elements gets promoted, let’s talk about that instead”) and the content of the article (“This song is racist because it contains those elements, let’s hope Lorde stops being such a racist”).
They’re also sometimes self-applied, sometimes used as insults against men, sometimes used as generic expressions of dominance (recall the Daikatana marketing campaign), sometimes even used as a sort of friendly tease (stereotypically by gay men, IME). To focus solely on the meaning that supports the accusation of misogyny – the least likely meaning in context – is to impose one’s own interpretation in order to push an agenda.
More specifically, it’s attempting to find a line of reasoning that fits the data points and the desired conclusion. Lines of reasoning that fit the data but lead to a different conclusion are discarded.
It’s not that I don’t agree with the premises, it’s that each link in the chain is speculative. These words can be slurs against women, slurs are often used to establish social power, a word that could be a slur against women is used outside of what would be its usual context if that meaning were intended. Even if each statement has a better-than-average chance of being accurate, the more of them you link together, the less plausible the entire chain becomes. This telephone-game version of deductive reasoning is rarely seen outside of conspiracy theories.
First… do you find any ostentatious displays of wealth in country music? In my experience, quite the opposite.
Second, they’re stereotypes of hip-hop, which is not exclusively black.
Let’s look at the full list:
Gold teeth
Grey goose
Trippin’ in the bathroom
Blood stains
Ball gowns
Trashin’ the hotel room
Cristal
Maybach
Diamonds on your timepiece
Jet planes
Islands
Tigers on a gold leash
Conservatively, I’d say 8 out of those 12 have no association with race. But if you think she cherry-picked displays of wealth in black music, then what are some of the displays of wealth in white music that she overlooked?
Edit:
In this case, no harmful effects have been shown to exist at all.
My point isn’t that intent is the only thing that matters, it’s that for approximately any work, regardless of its content, it’s possible to propose an interpretation through which it can be viewed as racist, sexist, or anything else. This usually proves nothing about the work itself, only about the rhetorical skill of the person proposing the interpretation and the gullibility(*) of the people who accept it.
[size=85](* or, more charitably, their predisposition to believe the conclusion)[/size]
Again, why do you think that music is the only place where she could find displays of wealth? Why not use the displays of wealth by the titular Royals?
Why does that need to be defended? Do you think it’s inherently suspect for a character in a song to be inspired by music?
Why should the artist have to change an innocuous element of her song just because some people choose to interpret it in a way that bothers them?
And if she had used the displays of wealth by the royal family – which is as white as hip-hop is black – then by this logic, wouldn’t she still be equally guilty of perpetuating racial prejudice?
Sure, let’s stick to my original statement, if you like:
These are logical leaps of the sort you’ve been saying everyone else is doing. This song contains these racist elements, this song is racist, Lorde is a racist are separate assertions, each requiring a greater level of proof since each is a more general statement. I’m not going to speak to whether or not I agree with those assertions because that is not the discussion we are having: you initially said it was ridiculous to attempt analysis, and I’m arguing that it isn’t.
I’m not certain why that is the “least likely” meaning. The article itself pointed out that in certain circles of gay men that trade in hypermasculinity, femininity is seen as weak or inferior and so it is not surprising that words used are slurs historically used against females. However, you believe this is coincidence. It’s used as an expression of dominance, I’d say also originally from the longstanding imbalance of gendered power, but you believe this is coincidence (you called it a generic expression). It is also used as a friendly tease among non-women (just as “gay” is used as a pejorative by many straight men to label something feminine, annoying, or bad). I’d say this stems from the word’s original negative connotation of stereotypes of women as mean, annoying, petty, or weak. But you believe this to be coincidence. You’re entitled to your opinion, and clearly you think people who disagree with you are “pushing an agenda.” But when presented with that many data points in support of a theory, how can you blame a person for saying that maybe there isn’t a coincidence here? How can you blame them for engaging their capacity for reason an analysis and doing exactly what you accuse them of: “imposing their interpretation” upon data that shows a trend? Is that not how all human knowledge has been built?
More specifically, it’s attempting to find a line of reasoning that fits the data points and the desired conclusion. Lines of reasoning that fit the data but lead to a different conclusion are discarded.
[/quote]
What on earth are you talking about? That does not make any sense at all. If I showed up to a physics lecture hall and said “Theory of gravity, huh? Seems like you guys neglected to consider the conclusion that actually invisible gremlins are pulling objects toward each other using invisible undetectable string which would ALSO fit the data, but you guys clearly wanted to support your own DESIRED line of reasoning. Wow, I can’t believe what a joke the entire discipline of physics is, and the wild theories you guys are trying to foist on all of us.” I would hopefully not be taken seriously.
Additionally, the ways in which gendered and homophobic insults like “bitch” or “gay” or “■■■” get taken and used in other contexts are numerous. When confronted, many insist that they are using the word with a new meaning unrelated to the original one. Some definitely aren’t using it consciously with ill intent towards the maligned group, it’s just language they’ve picked up from peers and culture (and who knows, maybe even the Daikatana marketing campaign). The people who have heard those words applied to them, on the other hand, are forced to read those words through a different lens due to their own lived experience. I haven’t gotten personal until now, but let me end with this. Ask yourself why you consider using any or all of those words in other contexts nonpolitical/generic/status quo. Ask yourself why you consider suggesting alternate language or drawing a link to be “pushing an agenda.”
LOL. I’m just going to leave this here and see if you can think of any answers as to why, if Lorde had chosen to make fun of the British royal family, it might not have been interpreted as racist against white people.
Issues of discrimination aside (as I do not think I have enough experience to meaningfully comment on them), one small point here.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the use of the word “bitch” as pejorative for a promiscuous woman dates from the 1400s. From the 1500s onward it could also be used to refer to a man, but in this sense it wasn’t always considered insulting; it was roughly equivalent to the modern use of “dog”. The connotations of malice, pettiness, or difficulty are more recent, and the meaning of submissive even newer. According to (the admittedly less reputable source) etymonline.com, the use as pejorative for a weak or subservient man originated from this meaning in English slang in the 1990s. I do not know whether the modern meaning (in the sense of a friendly tease) derives from this or by analogy with “dog” as happened previously.
So the oldest use (as far as referring to a person–the meaning of “female dog in heat” is older) was originally a sex-specific insult, but it has not always been pejorative in the sense it is now.
By the same people who think these references to hip-hop are racist against black people? Well, I can think of one reason, but it’s a pretty ugly one. Why don’t you enlighten us?
Come now matt w, vaporware’s tactic is an age-worn one. Racism is commonly understood as prejudice based on and/or perpetuating harmful stereotypes of a group based on skin color or perceived ethnicity. The tactic is to redefine racism as “saying not-nice things about someone based on their race.” Under this new definition, racism becomes a synonym for incivility and any attempt to circumscribe its use in public spaces can either be dismissed as a both-sides-do-it triviality or decried as a suppression of free speech, effectively ignoring and marginalizing any underlying discussion of power and history and cultural dynamics.
Not to throw a cog in the works and derail the ongoing debate (which I’m enjoying reading), but in that case T&J doesn’t perpetuate a harmful stereotype - merely a stereotype. Stereotypes can be considered racist because they purposefully reduce a race to a handful of characteristics and strip them of their human qualities… but that’s what stereotypes are; they’re purposeful reductions of something more complex to an easily understandable and idenfitiable form. By which token, stereotypes are racists, speciests, sizeists, they are all of that and more.
I don’t even see the Mammy as a harmful stereotype. Maybe I’d be singing a different tune if my skin was a different colour, but I see a sweet, protective, cheery old lady. Come to think of it, I’ve seen quite a few in real life. Not all were black, either.
(You guys are waaaaaaaaaay past this point in the conversation, I know, but I am completely unable to join in at the level you’re all at, so I’ll make do with something this basic)
The mammy archetype has to do with surrogacy. Its historical overtones are grounded in slavery and black women’s subservient role as the forced caretakers of white children. Often, enslaved women’s own children were sold away. Mammies were deliberately depicted as desexualized and domestic and non-threatening; with no agency or desires except the care of other people’s children. They were often also depicted as Uncle Toms, forsaking their black families for the sake of their white charges. To me it’s a pretty potent image of forced subservience, like showing off a once spirited mare who has been broken to the bit.
So, let’s consider two possible utterances as made by Lorde:
“I’m not like these people” (pointing to the royal family).
“I’m not like these people” (pointing to a group of largely black hip-hop artists).
Which of these utterances could not possibly be taken to be based on the race of the people she’s referring to? I might have to go to bed soon, so try to solve this without further hints.
“Royal family” and “hip-hop artists” are so strong definers in those possible utterances that I honestly skim over the “black” bit and see wealthy, conformed and old versus struggling, fighting and young. Both of them are stereotypes, so they’re both as bad as each other.
But, as Matt_W showed me just now, I may be a bit naïve. Or misinformed. Or ignorant. Depending on how charitable you feel.
Yes, I’ll grant you that by replacing the context of the song with a different context (possibly a visual scene in which we can observe whose skin colors match?), and replacing the lyrical content with a blanket denial of similarity between the singer and the people she’s referring to, you’ve proposed a situation in which one is more likely to be racist than the other. One that’s very, very different from what we were just talking about. Congratulations.
But notice that if we add in even just a little bit of the original context, and change the utterance to “I’m not as rich as these people”, the racial subtext evaporates.
Do you see why these analyses reading racism into the song come across as leap after leap of tortured logic? We started with a song that alternates between descriptions of the narrator’s poverty, references to certain displays of wealth in music, and assertions that the narrator and her peers are fine without that wealth because they have something else valuable. To get from there to “I’m not like these people”, you had to assume that race was the key factor in those displays of wealth (ignoring the two-thirds that have no connection to race whatsoever), then substitute race itself for wealth and forget everything else about the context in which those displays of wealth were brought up.
That’s a lot of snide presumption to wade through, but it sounds like maybe you were trying to say something like this: “Listing things that wealthy musicians do perpetuates harmful stereotypes, and is therefore a form of racism, but listing things that wealthy aristocrats do doesn’t perpetuate harmful stereotypes, and is therefore not a form of racism.” Is that about right?
Or misinformed. Or ignorant. Depending on how charitable you feel.