Outing Your Students?

As can be read about further in this ABC News article, an odd event in the news this weekend was a Memphis high school principal’s outing of two homosexual students.

Daphne Beasley (pictured to the right), the principal at Hollis F. Price Middle College High School, reportedly demanded that all of her staff bring her a list of all student couples (heterosexual or homosexual) so as to “cut down” on public displays of affection. However, upon receiving the name of a gay couple on her campus, she decided to take some further action herself.

One student quoted, named Nicholas, was a junior who was not out-of-the-closet to his family, though Beasley essentially did this herself when informing the student’s mother that her son did not have a girlfriend, but rather, a boyfriend.

According to the statement released by the Memphis School District, the “call list” was “used by Beasley to ‘notify the parents of those children she knew to be involved romantically’ after the school received ‘numerous complaints’ of ‘explicit sexual behavior in public view’.” The “list” was also posted publicly in the principal’s office.

The ACLU has gotten wind of the issue, and is threatening legal action, as this has violated the privacy of the students. It sure sounds like a cheap way of purporting some crazy principal’s homophobia to me.

Controlling Images

A few of my fellow bloggers (Of Ignorance and Politosaurus Rex) have decided to write about this particular topic, so I thought I would join in on the fun.

The current cover of Vogue magazine has sparked a bit of controversy, as the image shows the African-American LeBron James, as well as the light-skinned Gisele Bundchen (though it is important to note that Bundchen is of Brazilian descent, and not just “typical white,” as many might assume) in fairly different roles.

The current controversy lies in many seeing James’ depiction in the image as savage-like, comparing blacks to animalistic beings. One source, for example, says that the image on the Vogue cover “reinforce[s] the criminalization of black men” (Damian Thomas, courtesy of USA Today). The image has been compared to that of King Kong and Fay Wray, as Bundchen is the damsel, and James is the dominating and violent monster.

I am always conflicted when I see critiques of images that are accused of being "racist." Part of me wants to sort of dismiss this as "over-analyzing" and just reading way too far into things. I mean, can't we just be happy that we are sort of promoting "diversity"? It often times seems that every image of any minority can always somehow be spun around as a negative one, and when there are so-called “positive” images, they would basically only occur on downright un-viewed TV shows or horribly-circulated magazines.

However, to the contrary, I do also wonder if it really is an issue that we place many minorities into these narrow-minded "roles," such as the African-American male being "animalistic.” Is it that we reading too far into the analysis of the image, or are we just conditioned, through the media, not to recognize this as a problematic depiction?

It is extremely problematic to see that minorities in our country are limited to stereotypical controlling images. While I am not saying that this particular image necessarily purports a narrowed view of black men, it may be in our subconscious not to recognize it as such. Furthermore, it may be even further into our subconscious not to realize its effects. Many may not care whether or not the image is considered to be negative or positive towards black males, as they can say to themselves: “regardless, this image does not have an effect on my perception of these people, be it negative or positive.” But, the danger lies in us not realizing that these often-repeated images can in fact dominate the depictions of these minorities in the white-idealized media that drives America.

I obviously cannot argue for what my subconscious does or does not process when absorbing these images, as it is my subconscious, but nonetheless, it is something to think about.

We Don't Need "Fixing"

Though not front-page news, by any means, one interesting headline that has gotten some attention this week has been the news of a new book, titled “My Beautiful Mommy,” by author Dr. Michael Salzhauer. The novel is a children’s book, aimed at youngsters around ages four to seven, which explains the story of a mother getting cosmetic surgery (specifically, a nose job, tummy tuck, and breast augmentation) and having to explain the process to her small child.

At first, this definitely seems alarming. It does not seem like it was so long ago that cosmetic surgery was not the national phenomenon that it seems to be right now. However, with growing numbers of patients going under the knife, there are more and more people effected. Salzhauer explains (as detailed in a Newsweek article) his reasoning behind the book, which serves as a means for parents (specifically mothers) to be able to easier explain the process of their cosmetic surgeries to their children.

While it might seem that most individuals concerned with child development would oppose the advent of such a novel, that is not entirely the case. Child psychiatrist Elizabeth Berger, as explained in the Newsweek article, likes the idea of a children’s book. She believes that the process of cosmetic surgery can be very lengthy, and that it definitely needs some sort of explanation to young children. As parents may be absent, out of commission, and/or appearing like they may have been involved in some sort of violent acts, the availability of a book that can explain the idea of cosmetic surgery may not be such a bad thing.

However, Berger does acknowledge the negatives. She also worries that children will seemingly want to follow “mommy’s” example, and desire to get their own cosmetic surgeries done. I find this to be the most potentially harmful piece of this further normalization of cosmetic surgery. As it can be seen in several of my previous blog posts, beauty standards are inherently impossible to avoid in our lives (be it through media, culture, etc.), as we are being conditioned while we grow up to adhere to a strict set of aesthetic rules. I think that the idea of trying to normalize this behavior to children runs an extreme of risk of even further conditioning them to think along the lines of, “I must alter myself in order to be beautiful.” If “mommy” gets her cosmetic procedures done in such a seemingly normal way, then why wouldn’t her children feel the need to do the same thing?

While cosmetic surgery may not be going away, I do not know if it is wise to so easily provide children with even more reason to believe that their bodies and appearance need “fixing.” While I am not at all claiming that people shouldn’t be allowed to have whatever cosmetic surgery they so desire, we also should not work to condition people in our society any further to feel the need to always need “fixing” to be beautiful. We must work to prevent more and more of these messages from building up and in turn being conditioned into individuals, as it only creates people who feel aesthetically inferior for the rest of their lives…and that is a harm that cannot be cured.

No Co-Ed Housing?

As everyone gears up to finalize their plans for next year’s housing at USC, a topic comes to my mind that our University does not have much of a place for: coeducational living.

Co-ed housing is a no-go in any USC-owned buildings. Roommates are not allowed to be of different sexes. Furthermore, an apartment with, for example, two bedrooms with two roommates a piece, still needs to be all-male or all-female.

There are some obvious arguments about presumed sexual behavior between residents in the same room. I do not think that this is something that should be assumed of opposite-sex residents, though. If people want to have sex, they are going to do it regardless. Furthermore, if two individuals want to make the choice to live together, they are going to have to be responsible enough to deal with that decision…and it is not as if they cannot make that exact decision in some off-campus (non-USC) housing, for that matter.

The issue of housing also presents a problem for many homosexual individuals. There are definitely some homosexual men, for example, who may not want to be forced to live with a heterosexual male, for fear of their roommate not feeling comfortable. However, if they cannot live with a female, then there really are not any other options available.

To me, it just seems dumb that we do not have the option. I think it is high time that the University ditches its age-old practices are gives the students the freedom to choose how they want to live. We are old enough to make our own decisions.

Thomas is Pregnant

Thomas Beatie, who used to be known as Tracy Beatie, was born a female. However, Thomas decided to undergo a sex-change operation (though not a complete one) and legally identify himself as a male. After his teenage years, Thomas felt the need to openly express what he had felt for a long time: that he was really a man that was, to him, trapped in a woman’s body. A lot of people question the legitimacy of many transgender individuals’ claims that they can genetically and mentally have disparaging identities. Regardless of whether or not the claims are thought to be “true,” though, there is a large population of people who experience this and take action to be able to live as a member of the opposite sex.

What is interesting about Thomas’ transgender story is that, currently, he is pregnant. Due to his original reproductive organs, of which he did not alter, he is able to carry a child, though he still identifies himself as a male in our society. This has recently gained media attention, as the image of Thomas with a masculine body and bearded face, as well as a pregnant body, is an interesting sight to see.

Every person is always entitled to his or her own opinion, and I’m sure that a lot of people believe that Thomas’ baby will be raised with a flawed upbringing, due to this child’s unnatural parental figures. It is unfortunate that Thomas’ child is automatically assumed by many to have some sort of diseased existence. Granted, his daughter’s life will surely not be just like most other children’s, but personally, I feel that any environment where a child will be raised with loving parents is better than far too many awful upbringings, albeit with “traditional” family structures.

Nonetheless, the gender line seems like it is to even further blur a little more. It is so difficult, when living in a society that has been conditioned to only view “male” and “female,” for any deviant category to exist with a normal life. If everyone works to open their mind a bit to a concept that may differ from what they have been conditioned to view as “normal,” we could learn a lot more about some things we choose not to understand…and besides, “normal” is a word built on fantasy.




Here is the first clip (of five) from Thomas’ appearance on Oprah this past week.

On Prostitution

My friend over at The Rail-Splitter recently published a post regarding our media culture. In it, he explores the recent Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal and the media’s varied coverage of the woman involved, Ashley Dupre, which led me to consider this topic a little more.

To me, prostitution is an interesting debacle. Obviously, there are health concerns when it comes to prostitution, as well as many people whose lives could turn to drug abuse and violence when delving into such a matter. I think this definitely shows that some sort of control upon prostitution is necessary. However, I do not agree that the actual idea of prostitution is a bad one. Who is to say that one can or cannot be paid for some sort of sexual interaction?

Just as people are paid to sing for you or serve you food, it seems that someone could similarly be paid to perform a sexual service. I do not think that people can be denied the right to be given money for something that could in many ways be compared to so many other jobs and tasks that we, as normal members of society, utilize. I’m not trying to say that paying for a prostitute is the same thing as hiring a plumber to come over and fix a leak, but many parallels can be drawn.

I think we have been so conditioned to assume that prostitution is this awful concept that we do not tend to consider many other alternate views on the topic. Yes, there might be an image in our heads of some unfortunate street hooker whose life is a mess of drugs, but that is not the type of legalized prostitution I am speaking of (and, the part that said “regulated” system would not allow), nor would this problem really be heightened through the use of a controlled system.

So, I guess I’m all for prostitution…not in the sense that I support it, as I do not necessarily personally approve of it, but I do not think that matters. Really, I think the matter is: who is to say you can’t be a prostitute? …and I do not think anyone is to say. Prostitution could, for example, be contained to safer brothels that are under some sort of government regulations, and not be necessarily something that is encouraged…but something that is allowed, nonetheless. Many other countries, especially in Europe, use this system (as well as in Nevada, to some extent), and I think it is at least something to think about.

Ellen Takes On Sally!

Our Nation’s Biggest Threat

Unlike hard drugs or double homicide, the REAL thing that is terrifying to our country and for our youth is still out there, not being addressed: the homosexuals.

According to a speech from Oklahoma state representative Sally Kern last week, homosexuality is the biggest threat to our country. Even bigger than terrorism!

Not only did she say that, but, in fact, she compared it to cancer: it is a disease, it is spreading, and it will destroy the nation.

Though Kern’s remarks have not been at the very top of the headlines over the past few days, they have definitely spurred many reactions from the public and media. As expected, many have reacted to the representative’s extreme remarks, calling for apologies. However, when approached about taking back her remarks, Kern simply brushed them off: “when I am wrong, and it is brought to my attention, I will apologize.”

It definitely seems that gay-bashing sells well. In fact, any radical remarks nowadays seem to hit some sort of racial, gender, or sexual extreme so as just to ask for a public riot in response. If someone’s comments can pinpoint a particular population in any sort of non-“politically correct” fashion, it can get the people fired up.

This brings a question: does Kern truly believe that terrorism is in the backseat next to homosexuality, or is she just trying to create a buzz? Now, if the former is the case, then this country truly has even farther to go than I had imagined in terms of tolerance. However, though there are definitely extreme views everywhere, it is also very possible that Kern made statements such as these (or, at least, refuses to back down from them) in order to gain a portion of the public’s attention.

How many people had heard of Sally Kern before last week? I’m sure the numbers were minimal at best; however, after her little rant in Oklahoma, she has received national attention far beyond the levels of her former audience. Though many are outraged by the representative’s remarks, she has undoubtedly gained a bit more notoriety, and in turn, most likely, some more political prowess, than she ever had before.

Kern’s recent rant definitely reached media outlets like youtube.com (check out a video here with over one million hits: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tFxk7glmMbo). If Kern does not care about the liberties of the gay community, then why wouldn’t she include some extreme words so as to create a youtube.com “sensation”? It makes sense, and it does not take much effort by Sally herself. The recorded words alone are able to set off the spark, and it’s all up to the internet and the public after that.

Though explaining Kern’s and many others outlandish remarks as attempts at gaining media celebrity, this behavior is still dangerous to society. Though many may view Kern’s narrow-minded efforts to demean the gay community as downright ridiculous speech, there are many members of the public that are not going to think that way. Every message preaching intolerance is negative, despite how ridiculously radical it may seem.

Until words such as Kern’s are under control, the gay community should not expect to see any widespread acceptance. While we tend to think of racial intolerance as something we have overcome as a country from the place we were at sixty years ago, the deep roots of this issue are not completely vanishing anytime soon. This is even more of a problem with sexual orientation, as the call for tolerance is not really being heard, and while some may assume that social acceptance is abound, it may be even farther off than it seems.

Though America may still be in its place of prejudice, it does not mean that the world is doomed. As members of this society, it is important to remember that we should never be afraid to use our voices. Kern may have just wanted the people to get fired up, but her words will be there, regardless. It is up to a socially-concerned public to take Kern’s ignorance and use it as a means to preach tolerance for all people in this country, and that is the best that can be made of it.


SOURCES:

The Advocate. “Kern defends anti-gay remarks.” (Published Wednesday, March 19, 2008). Accessed at: http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2008/03/19/1

“Oklahoma State Rep.: Gays ‘Biggest Threat’ to US.” (Published Monday, March 11, 2008). Accessed at: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/11/headlines#6

Still Just as Ignorant

In a year when a woman and a black man are competing for the Democratic presidential nomination, America yet again is still able to show its narrow-mindedness. When it comes to sexual orientation, the nation is still far behind.

On February 12, 2008, a 15 year-old boy was shot in the head in Oakland, California. Why would the murderer do such a thing? As it turns out, the victim identified himself as openly homosexual. Lawrence “Larry” King, a student at E. O. Green Junior High School, was shot in the head by his 14 year-old classmate, Brandon McInerney.

Just when it seems plausible to think that a diversity of sexual orientation is as prevalent in this country as a multitude of races and cultures, another Matthew Shepard tragedy is on America’s hands. Despite the progress that society has supposedly made since that 1998 catastrophe, it is still acceptable to discriminate just the same based on sexual orientation, and there is no urgency in the actions being taken because of this.

The media coverage of this incident has been oddly non-specific. Many reports only briefly, if at all, mention the factor of King’s homosexuality. It seems that society is not even ready to accept the idea that such a young child could already be associating himself with an alternative sexual lifestyle. Even in the tragic case of his death, as it is with King, the media is choosing to ignore the social issues raised by this debacle.

What is the fear here? Is this country still too ignorant to acknowledge the idea that people can still be murdered simply for being gay? While we may hope to have moved past this stage, I believe most people would not completely count this factor out. Rather, I think the issue lies in the ignorance of this country to accept the fact that a young boy could in fact be gay…and, tragically, he could also be killed for such an act. Freeing oneself from the heterosexual chains of our culture is what Larry King felt that he needed to do, yet he was not allowed to enjoy this liberty of new life for very long.

Is it fair to blame Brandon McInerney? The young boy of only 14 years has been raised in some sort of culture or upbringing which told him that it is acceptable to take such actions against a homosexual person. The fact that one’s sexual orientation could be used as a justification for murder showcases the extreme lack of societal awareness for this pressing social issue. As a population in this country, we seem to be living in some delusion that we have moved past the days of Matthew Shepard and extreme ignorance. However, the same story of the same ignorance is being told a healthy ten years later.

Hatred is still ever-present. These children, like McInerney, are growing up in families that believe it is okay to be intolerant of homosexuals. They are being told by many public and religious figures that these acts of homosexuality are wrong. These children are growing up to commit crimes of hate among members of the LGBT community in America, and the country is not even concerned to stop it from happening.

The voice of LGBT activism in America is ever-dwindling. What was once a full-blown fire of social movement has been terribly calmed down. America is left with almost solely a debate over gay marriage, which is really just rooted in a distraction from other pressing national issues that the government would rather refrain from discussing. This dwindling national momentum must be sparked again to make this country aware.

There needs to be a new voice to stop this hatred and violence. Political leaders need to speak out. When hate crime legislation is still not all-inclusive of crimes committed based on premises of sexual orientation, the veins of our country’s political landscape are still fully pumping with ignorant blood, and it is far overdue to move past these times. Until national action is taken, the system will not change. While it is important for all people to make a difference themselves, the only way to ignite the nation is through this country’s leadership. At all levels, be it parents, teachers, politicians, or preachers, this message of tolerance and urgency must be spread. The time to act is now.

An Expanding Intellectual

The idea of a “public intellectual” may be a slightly modern label, but the figures which the term describes have been around for quite some time. The notion that certain individuals have been able to enlighten other members of the population presents quite a varied array of who and what can qualify as this illusive figure. In his essay, “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectuals?”, Stephen Mack explains the thoughts of many current thinkers, concerned that our culture has moved away from being stimulated by individuals that, in the past, we labeled as public intellectuals (Mack). Though Mack speaks of a “fiction of America’s anti-intellectualism,” there is nonetheless what seems to be a smaller presence of prominent people who I would readily label as “public intellectuals” in the American media.

Mack’s essay references distinguished figure Richard Posner, one of the most “important legal theorists of our time,” and his 2001 novel Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline, where he defines the public intellectual as solely an academic, separate from the arts and humanities (Mack). While it is not the only definition, this is one idea of what constitutes the term. It can of course similarly be argued that any realm of thought, be it the arts or not, be considered by some as “intellectual” behavior. Who is to say that the arts and humanities are not “academic,” after all? Furthermore, when scrutinizing the term a bit closer, what exactly makes a public intellectual “public”? The moment one does not keep his or her thoughts locked in a personal diary for only oneself to see, it seems that from then on, the thoughts of that person are “public” if they are reaching more than one person, at least to some degree. Does it have to be the mass media? Here we are presented with many questions, since the term which is being discussed can be interpreted so broadly, while some prefer to give it a very narrow scope and definition. There is not one right answer, but I tend to believe that in today’s ever-changing age of innovation, it seems almost too simple to give the public intellectual only one definition. Rather, it can be explored just how broad and expansive this figure can be in the 21st century.

There is an implied irony, to some degree, in the term “public” of “public intellectual.” Going beyond the issue of precisely to whom the person is speaking, to what size public is this figure really attempting to enlighten effectively? If an intellectual is really speaking to a supposed “public,” implying a mass population, that is quite a daunting task. The larger the audience becomes, the more difficult it also becomes to provide any sort of intellectual insight into a matter that said public would agree upon…or at the very least, find helpful. It seems that in a group of any size greater than one, there is always the possibility that the audience at hand may not even consider the figure a “public intellectual” in the first place. This raises a question of whether or not there is ever really a clear-cut image of this figure in our society, or is there always going to be a disagreement? Since this type of intellectual is supposed to be speaking to its public audience, this group does not have to listen or accept any of what he or she is saying, especially when speaking on such a mass scale, as it is with an entire country.

On a similar vein, the types of results which come from a public intellectual are not so easy to discern. What type of outcome allows a person to be deemed a true public intellectual? An individual can talk and talk and talk, but the one who actually causes the audience at hand to at least process the words and take some sort of action could be considered the one most worthy of the title. This raises the issue of whether or not a public intellectual needs to spur the public to some sort of action or change. Someone can be a brilliant “intellectual” in some people’s opinions, but if they never get there audience to comprehend or process anything, then their work may just be wasted. On one hand, we may have a nationally-publicized intellectual who never gets any of his country-wide audience to get off of their living room sofas. However, there may be a teacher in some small classroom somewhere who is effectively able to enlighten his or her students with enough knowledge to go out into the world and make some sort of positive social change. These people are not speaking to the American public at large, but they are speaking to their own “public” in a microcosm, and they may be able to create more change (obviously on a proportionally different scale) than a lot of high-profile figures who are receiving the national press campaigns. To me, these “smaller” intellectuals are just as important. While not everyone may be the darling of the American media, or even getting any national press at all, if only one of these parties is able to make their audience take any action on these current issues, they can be just as important a public intellectual as any.

Kathryn Edgeworth, in her essay “Women as Public Intellectuals: The Exclusion of the Private in Public Intellectual Life,” describes the role of what she labels the “private” intellectual, with regard to figures in the past who argued specifically for feminist issues. She writes that these women may “focus on the private sphere in articulating discourse in the public domain” and are in turn “likely to be denied the status of ‘public intellectual’” (Edgeworth). Whenever a female tends to discuss issues such as women’s rights, it is often written off as “feminist insanity” by many Americans. While this may not appeal to the mass public, in certainly has the ability to motivate action among the “private” world that Edgeworth discusses. If these figures are never able to assume the same label of the “public intellectuals,” it is only because their words may not be generally accepted or welcomed by the mass population at large. Nonetheless, their ability to stimulate some particular public does not discredit their places as contributing intellectuals who are still enlightening the public in one capacity or another.

Since the broadness in scope of the public intellectual has been explained, it is important to look at some problems that might arise due this apparent lack of any real definition for what a “public intellectual” is. With regard to the current age of new technology and media, the narrow definition of the widely-publicized “public intellectual” is presented with even more challenges. In the growing craze over the past decade of celebrity obsession and heightened media attention, it seems like it may be even harder to allow a public intellectual to live by a narrow-scoped definition. Is this figure really there to inform the public, or are they just there to achieve some sort of fame? Anything that could possibly be deemed “radical” nowadays is able to gain hoards of media coverage. With online video sites like youtube.com and various blog sites which specialize in the triumphs and travails of public figures, not only is our culture’s obsession with celebrities ever-present, but the ability to be featured in the mass media is even easier. With this in mind, can a public intellectual’s intentions remain solely based on informing the public?

In class, we brought up Ann Coulter and the question of whether or not she could be considered a “public intellectual.” Since the broad boundaries of the term are so vague anyway, let’s just assume for right now that we are considering her to be a part of that group. Coulter, an extremely vocal author and personality in America who thrives on making controversial comments in favor of the right wing, can be viewed as an example of this intellectual versus celebrity conflict. Is she making these statements because she really wants to inform the public of her extreme opinions, or, rather, is she simply making these radical statements so as to gain more media attention in today’s star-struck culture? While it is not really fair to assume either is necessarily an absolute truth, some of Coulter’s radical and often hate-infused comments due reach great heights, such as her 2007 reference to John Edwards as “a faggot” due to her apparent need to label him as a “wuss” (CNN.com). While it has not necessarily been decided if Coulter is a public intellectual in the first place, nevertheless we can acknowledge a sort of tug-of-war between a duty to inform the public, and a duty to entertain the public (even in Coulter’s somewhat sick view of demeaning gay people to achieve such ends) by way of the media hype that may come from such radical remarks.

The issue of media celebrity plays a new card with the advent of technology such as the internet and websites like youtube.com, where somebody can post their own intellectual thoughts and possibly reach out to people all over the globe. Is the issue what this particular person is discussing, or is it also the media through which is it presented? If a distinguished scholar decides to utilize an online video source as his method of reaching the public, or even if it is not a prestigious academic, it shows that there are constantly new ways of approaching this “public intellectual” definition.

While it helps to be able to define some terms specifically, there are many that cannot be contained so easily. The public intellectual’s work has the ability to reach all sorts of groups and encompass a myriad of different arenas of “intellect,” so to speak. While it may be an issue of academia versus the arts, or the mass media versus the college classroom, the lines can often be blurred. Similarly, the difference between the public intellectual and the private intellectual is definitely a topic of debate, though in my opinion, there is not really much need to separate the two. Gone are the days, it seems, when the prominent public intellectuals are well-known in our media. It is important not to allow a “definition” of the public intellectual to become narrower, but instead, to make room for it to become broader. We are in an age of ever-expanding media and technology, and, as a result, a culture that is always changing. What worked to stimulate the public twenty years ago may not lead to any change in today’s age. There is not one type of intellectual that can speak to the population of our country as a whole. Rather, we can accept a multitude of different intellectuals in varying fashions who are all working to speak to their specific publics, big or small…and, in turn, we can know that this proliferation of knowledge is still with us today. While some are worried for the “decline” of the public intellectual, perhaps it is more a reframing of what the public intellectual is capable of that will allow us to study these people’s influences more effectively.

WORKS CITED:
CNN.com. “Coulter under fire for anti-gay slur.” 4 March 2007. Accessed on 23 February 2008 at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/04/coulter.edwards/index.html

Edgeworth, Kathryn. “Women as Public Intellectuals: The Exclusion of the Private in Public Intellectual Life” (1999). Accessed on 23 February 2008 at http://www.skk.uit.no/WW99/papers/Edgeworth_Kathryn.pdf

Posner, Richard A. Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (2001).

Mack, Stephen. “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectuals?” 14 August 2007. Accessed on 13 February 2008 at http://www.stephenmack.com/blog

Accepting what is Inescapable

While someone may not be able to transform themselves into “white,” they are fully able to slightly “tweak” themselves and get one step closer. While it is not the perfect situation, one can at least accept these actions as desires to fulfill some sort of inherent beauty standard which we cannot erase.

This is what Tyra Banks seems to think.


Why is it that our culture in today’s world is so conditioned to follow what is seemingly one set of Western beauty ideals? Though some may argue that it is not the only form of beauty, every other perceived “beauty” is only labeled as such for its exotic appeal and “Other”-ness, thus separate from the prevailing ideal of Caucasian beauty.

Even if solely changing one's eyelids, hair, or similar smaller features may not turn a person into the perfect representation of white beauty, it nonetheless is still an attempt to fit aspects of this ideal. If this is the idea of beauty, though, how are we supposed to escape it? One cannot change how they have been conditioned, and as a society, we have been conditioned to feel that the white beauty standard is the beauty standard by which we compare and judge all others. From the time we are small children, this has been implanted into our minds, and it is not necessarily right or wrong to “conform” to this ideal. However, it is important to at least accept that these standards are the reasons why, as a society, there is a desire to look and exist a certain way. While there may not be any easy way to change these standards, it is necessary to increase the awareness and knowledge that these beauty ideals do govern our lives, whether we realize it or not.

GO VOTE!

As it is election day here in California, go out and make a difference RIGHT NOW!!

"Other"-ing on the Campaign Trail

White and male. That has always been the make-up of the president of the United States. In the current mix of 2008’s campaign for the white house, two of the frontrunners are not of this seemingly inherent demographic which has dominated the nation for so long. While it may not be fair to assume that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both acting for change to this social stigma, they are, regardless, placed as figureheads for their respective demographic populations. Their roles as both a female and a non-white male, respectively, are still so “new” to this nation that it is a huge part of their importance in this election year. Though it may not be fair to them, both individuals are labeled as “Other” candidates when compared to the rest of the field, almost all consisting of the normalized white male. The idea of “the Other” is a key philosophical concept which is used in contrast with a concept of what would be labeled as the “normal” or “same.” The Other is defined and recognized by its difference with whatever is considered the normalized entity. Though many are in fact conscious of the hardship of being “the Other” in our culture, most efforts to empower this oppressed population only lead to much of their further polarization. When compared with the people who are normalized through accepted cultural norms, the Other is still simply that: the Other. When looking at the presidential race heading into the 2008 election, both front-running Democratic candidates are facing this dilemma. Despite efforts to counter or seemingly ignore any “Other”-ing brought to Hillary Clinton (as well as Barack Obama), their presence as non-normalized presidential candidates is nonetheless a challenge against this social structure and is able to eclipse many discussions of the actual issues of the campaign as their identities are defined by these limiting characteristics.

With regard to identity in the first place, one is able to define itself through a comparison with the Other, as it is by recognizing the differences inherent in this idea of “Other” that the normalized being can be labeled. In this sense, it is through comparison with other demographic traits that a white male presence can be labeled as the “normal” characteristic from which all other contrasting judgments are formed. Simone de Beauvoir, a prominent figure in the 1900s with regard to this concept of the Other and its relation to issues of gender, wrote about this idea in her work, The Second Sex. De Beauvoir’s work states that “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Through this concept, woman is not born with any significant differences to man, but she is conditioned and in turn naturalized to assume a part of this sex dichotomy which is present all over the world. Hillary Clinton presents an example of how “Other”-ness with regard to sex and gender can be problematic, though different than the issues presented in a racial difference. While “equality” is often treated as a sort of unreachable ideal, it seems that most regard any inequality between the sexes as a prejudice that has progressed the farthest over time in our nation. However, in many ways, this divide between the two sexes does in fact remain an acceptable form of discrimination. In looking at the other presidential hopefuls currently looking to become candidates in the general election, Barack Obama also plays an important role in being an African-American man: different from the normative role of the Caucasian figure that has always occupied the white house. It seems taboo to make a claim about Obama’s abilities to run the nation as a black man, yet Hillary’s female status is much more often readily used as a means of criticism and commentary.

Clinton’s role as the first female to ever make such a legitimate chance at entering the white house presents a powerful step for women in our culture, but, in turn, it presents a lot of problems due to its almost unnatural occurrence. Not only does it make her a poster-woman for her “Other”-ed group which she is almost forced to represent, but it also allows her place as an “Other” to define her presence along her campaign’s journey. While other candidates have the ability to be looked at as presidential contenders in the first place, Hillary is immediately labeled as the Other, as a woman (and, similarly, Obama as a non-white candidate). In the first place, this is a burden, as no matter what she does or says, she cannot really do anything to take away her place as a divergent from the normative politician. Beyond this, it creates an association with a particular group and demographic which leads to many assumptions and challenges that Hillary is forced to take on. While there may be a few problems for the white man to “battle” as well, Clinton is presented with a myriad of issues as a result of her sex.

Before the New Hampshire primary election in January of 2008, Clinton gained a lot of media attention for a public display which she began to, though slightly, show a side of emotion and begin to tear up when speaking to a small group of people in a coffee shop. Though not a large event, the video footage was posted throughout the internet and was turned into quite a big media talking-point during her campaign. While supporters allowed Clinton to take this moment as a showcasing of her sensitive and caring nature, negative critics either questioned its legitimacy or used it as an excuse to write her off as “emotional”: a trademark issue and excuse as to why women are less capable of achieving success, such as running our country, when compared with men. Maureen Down, in a New York Times opinion piece, wonders if Hillary “can cry her way back to the white house,” criticizing her emotional outburst and only impressed “that she could choke up and stay on message” (Down). She elaborates by explaining Hillary’s typical presence as an almost “masculine” figure who is often “seen as so controlling” to the public (Down). In the first place, it is problematic to draw such a stark white and pitch black comparison between two assumed and limiting characteristics of the opposite sexes. However, it also becomes a problem for Clinton specifically, as she is not given many positive courses of action. Cathy Young, in a piece for Reason Magazine, tells that “it would be truly an unfair burden to expect a female presidential candidate to be a standard-bearer for feminist idealism” (Young). However, the burden is there, as Hillary is the only person in her position, and in turn needs to uphold a strong feminine presence as one of her selling points, yet at the same time cannot let it define her either, so as to limit her identity when compared to the males with whom she is expected to battle.

This raises the question: what is Hillary allowed to do? Here, we can see the tricky situation that Clinton is put into through her status as the Other. Either she is pushed further into that category, a la the “emotional woman,” or she is seen as an Other who is trying to make her way with contenders who are the normative white males. In turn, this leads to her appearing as the Other who is ignoring her role as a powerful figure for the female population. It seems that no matter what path Clinton takes, even if it is a negotiation of the two, she is not able to succeed on any level that compares to the white male candidate, since he never has to face this issue in the first place. Not only this, but after all of the conversation is over regarding what route Clinton should take in handling her feminine status, it is interesting to step away from this issue and wonder why Hillary’s place as an actual political figure and candidate has not really been touched upon. While this is not to say that there is not a huge focus on Hillary’s political worth, as she is treated as a legitimate presidential contender, it cannot be denied that a male in the same situation does not have to face any of these extra issues. While the normative white men are able to escape this dilemma of the Other without even considering the extra obstacles it causes, Hillary, Obama, and anyone else who does not identify with this “normal” demographic are thrown even more hurdles to clear.

One of the main hurdles placed in front of Hilary is the frequent question asked: “can a woman run this country?” Now, this may be not be a completely unfounded claim, as a woman has never tried before. But who is to say that a man is able to do it? Surely no two people are the same, and it seems to foolish to ask such a question when the question of, “can this particular individual run this country?” is often just thrown to the side in favor of forming categories. As a human, it is common to group things together, but to assume that every man that was a president in the past was effectively “able” to run this country places all of them into one successful group of males which were apparently able to do this act successively. In turn, the claim almost trivializes the role of a presidency down to the physical technicality of actually sitting in the white house, and it sure seems that almost all of the population is physically capable of handling that task.

While there are many negatives to being the Other when thrown into the political mix, it may not be a completely positive experience for the “normal” individuals, either. One online opinion talks about the idea that, in the Democratic presidential race, John Edwards’ place in the race towards his party’s nomination was a challenge due to his lack of “symbolic weight.” Eugene Robinson explains that there is a problem in that Clinton and Obama’s “unique” traits “take up so much space that it's impossible to see the other guy” (Robinson). On one hand, this seems unfair that Clinton and Obama’s “Other”-ness has the potential to overshadow a legitimate campaign by another contender. However, Robinson goes on to state “that Clinton and Obama aren't candidates so much as phenomena” (Robinson). On this hand, it is very problematic to assert that these two candidates are seen as “phenomena” in the first place. The statement does not take into account any of the political worthiness of these candidates, but rather writes them off solely based on their traits as the Other. Furthermore, to assert such an extreme that the two “aren’t candidates” really does define them solely based on being the Other, in contrast with the white male normality that John Edwards is able to assume with complete ease. If the fact that a woman and a black man are campaigning for president really is so important that the political worth of both candidates can be stripped, in a greater sense, the quest for any identity sought out by the “Other”-ed population really is in jeopardy.

As humans, we are inherent labelers. Though it is very exclusive to allow one type of person the right to be the “normal” by which the Other is commonly formed, so it stands in our culture, and especially within this political arena. As the female Clinton and African-American Obama allow these roles to be a part of their identities, it inherently limits these identities as candidates who want to run just as every other presidential hopeful would. Despite the power that may come from being the exotic Other, the overshadow that it casts upon the candidates is similarly limiting. While the spectrum does have two sides, no matter which one may seem the most advantageous, the creation of the Other is what in turn leads to this “limiting,” in one way or another. When one has to step back from such a discussion and ponder whether or not any points about the actual issue at hand were acknowledged, therein lies a problem. If a political campaign looking to elect the leader of this country can be potentially decided by a candidate’s race or sex, despite conversations about the “real issues,” it must be recognized. It is not feasible to assume that people and voters want to admit that this may be the basis for their decision-making process, but if at the very least it can be recognized, that is a step in the right direction.


Works Cited:
De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex (1949). Trans. H M Parshley. New York: Penguin (1977).
Dowd, Maureen. “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?” New York Times. 9 January 2008. Retrieved 1 February 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html
Robinson, Eugene. “Edwards overshadowed by symbolic weight of Obama, Clinton.” The Island Packet Online. 26 January 2008. Retrieved 2 February 2008: http://www.islandpacket.com/526/story/142245.html
Young, Cathy. “Hillary’s Feminine Mystique: Is gender any reason to elect a president?” Reason Magazine. 7 July 2007. Retrieved 1 February 2008: http://www.reason.com/news/show/121162.html