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
No comments:
Post a Comment