#like! socially constructed ideas of personhood creating inherent violence in the human-construct relation!

[coquelicoq]

we get a lot of really great stuff in system collapse about murderbot's relationships with ART and ratthi, which makes sense, because it spends almost the entire book with them. but i also love how even though mensah isn't there for most of the story, other people keep reminding mb of her:

chapter 2, page 25: “From ART’s personnel file, she [Karime] was older than Mensah and she didn’t look like an intrepid space explorer, either, even in the protective environmental suit.”

2, 27: “It took Karime three seconds to process the abrupt statement. (She was almost as good at not looking annoyed as Mensah was.) She kept her expression neutral and patient.”

2, 28: “In the underground colony room, Karime lifted her brows. ‘Another occupied site?’ I thought she was being careful not to show too much reaction. It was the way Mensah would have played it.”

4, 70: “Iris looked at me and I saw her hesitate, because her hesitation looked a lot like Dr. Mensah’s hesitation. And I realized I really didn’t want to go down there.”

5, 104: "Iris has that same thing as Dr. Mensah, the thing where she’s able to look and sound calm under circumstances where shit is possibly about to go down.”

it's spent so much time with her and it knows her so well and respects her so much that she's the model against which it compares all other humans. it thinks about her when they're not together. it's protective of her. it has such total faith in her competence. it (non-romantically) loves her and doesn't want to not see her again. idk man, it just gets to me! and they were teammates (oh my god they were teammates!!)

bonus:

I said, aloud, "You have to be kidding me." (ch. 2, p. 28)

seven pages later, in reaction to the same thing:

Mensah had had time to review the feed video. She muttered, "Oh, you have to be kidding me." Yeah.

twinsies 🥰

#something about their relationship is just sooo potent because of the structural power that mensah has over mb #and how mb has always been trying to navigate how much it cares about her and respects her with how afraid it is #of being a thing that she owns #because even if she doesn't exercise that power over it the fact remains that the context in which they live makes that possible #like! socially constructed ideas of personhood creating inherent violence in the human-construct relation! #even if she means well. even if it's necessary for mb to have a legal owner so that some corporate doesn't claim it as property. #it's not that mensah is an unsafe person it's that the power imbalance is intrinsically baked in because of #the broader social context of constructs as nonpersons. as property and equipment #all of that is true! AND it respects her and loves her. AND they're teammates! they are both trying so hard #to create sth just and beautiful out of sth really messed up. and trusting each other to collaborate in that way! #it was SO necessary for mb to leave at the end of ASR and SO necessary for it to get proof at the end of ES #that she would not try to stop it from leaving. that it was free. that it was autonomous #idk idk i'm rambling i just. i care them #the murderbot diaries #mb teammates #mb sc #system collapse spoilers #system collapse #my posts #murderbot

[fightmeyeats]

Fantasy Racism™ Sure is Pretty White: A Critique of “Carnival Row”

One of the problems with the “politically relevant” fantasy genre is that it frequently offers “representation” and “relevant” critiques of social problems in ways which favor the representation of the oppressions people face, rather than of the people themselves--meaning metaphors which parallel fantasy races to people of color while using a predominantly white cast. Often times this further reifies the unmarked categories of the cultural context the work is produced in (ie whiteness as the dominant & default category), further marginalizes and dehumanizes people of color, and positions white folks as the victims of metaphorical white supremacy. Amazon’s new streaming original Carnival Row is an unfortunately clear example of this continued fetishization of white poverty/desperation/vulnerability at the expense of communities of color. 

Spoilers below. 

While one might rightly critique the “trauma porn” genre and the way that people of color are often brutalized on screen or depicted only as victims of violence in discussions of oppression, with the solidarity and resistance of communities of color erased from dominant narratives, substituting white bodies into these sequences of violence does not offer us a useful subversion. In her book What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia, Elizabeth Catte talks about the historical and contemporary use of a particular image of white poverty. The focal example of Catte’s book is J.D. Vance’s memoir Hillbilly Elegy (2016) where Vance consistently uses the image of the bad, dependent poor white to reify racist images of poverty and undermine the need for programs and systems to support poor folks--just one example of this is the way he insists that the “welfare queen” is real and implicitly argues that the use of this stereotype to undermine welfare programs is not racist because he has known white welfare queens. Outside of contemporary use, Catte also gives examples such as how in the 1960s “white poverty offered [white people uncomfortable with images of civil rights struggles] an escape--a window into a more recognizable world of suffering” (59), and the quotes Appalachian historian John Alexander Williams comments on the way that, in the displays of Appalachian poverty, “‘the nation took obvious relish in the white skins and blue eyes of the region’s hungry children’” (qtd Catte 82). This obsession with white poverty has little to do with addressing the actual problem; instead, it is a tool used to obscure oppression, resistance, and transformative solutions to these problems. 

Carnival Row offers a discourse on colonialism, racism, and xenophobia intended to mirror the political climate of the real world, namely the violence experienced by refugees and undocumented immigrants. It also attempts to comment on the way that Global North/colonial nations often create or are implicit in the creation of catastrophes which cause Global South/colonized nations and regions to become unsafe and result in refugee migrations, as well as the subsequent way that many times when refugees end up immigrating to the very nations that played a role in the collapse of their homelands, they are met with violence on multiple levels and their traumas are ongoing. In this current moment, this kind of discourse/intervention is “relevant” (I use scare-quotes because while the treatment of refugees in many Global North nations is horrendous in this current moment, this is not a new problem the way it sometimes is imagined) and I’m even willing to concede that there are some things which I think are done well. However--and this is a big however--the choice to make a predominantly white non-human population the metaphorical stand in for real life people who are predominantly of color greatly undermines what the series is attempting to accomplish. The implicit message is that it is easier for general audiences to sympathize with and recognize the personhood in non-human white figures than it is to sympathize with and recognize the personhood in real life people of color who are actively experiencing the violence fictionalized in this series. Furthermore, even as the victims obscure the real role white supremacy plays in xenophobia and the violence experienced by migrants and refugees, it still is a form of trauma porn. The only real difference is that because of the dominant whiteness of the victims, this version of trauma porn allows for the voyeuristic participation in systems of violence wherein many who are passively complicit (or even actively responsible) in the very systems causing violence are able to relate to the victims and experience a sort of cathartic release which allows them to maintain their complicity, feeling “good” that they consumed “politically relevant” content which allowed them to “care” safely, without having to address the reality that they are part of the brutalizers not the brutalized.

One of the ways that the show attempts to somewhat skirt around this problematic of white victimhood is by giving many of the white refugees, namely the main character Vignette (played by British actor/model Cara Delevigne), Irish accents and setting it in a time period which ambiguously mirrors the time before (as Noel Ignatiev puts it) “the Irish became white”. Celtic whiteness is used both in Carnival Row and with the case of Appalachia, and seems to be a particular favorite flavor for the fetization of white poverty. My personal theory is that this is because, when used in this way, the British colonization of Celtic peoples works to simultaneously obscure the racialized realities of both poverty and colonialism--in this fashion, Celtic whiteness is Othered just enough to justify the creation of white victimhood as a fetish object, but still undeniably white enough to connect this victimhood to the universal construction of whiteness. While there is nothing inherently wrong with including Ireland (or Scotland or Wales) in discourses of colonialism/neocolonialism because Ireland and other Celtic lands were and are colonized by the British and this colonization has had a clear and lasting impact on these regions and these peoples, using it as part of the fetishization of white poverty does not further anti-colonial goals, and again is being used to displace and obscure the way racism and white supremacy are central to anti-refugee and anti-immigrant rhetoric, policies, and popular practices.

During the first few episodes, I tentatively imagined myself commenting on the only semi-positive aspect I saw in the show’s use of whiteness: while obscuring metaphors for white-supremacist politics are deployed in many fantasy works, they often position people (humans) of color as being members of the human-supremacist groups which are meant to reflect real life white supremacy, further obscuring the real stakes of the topic being discussed. For the first four episodes, Carnival Row avoids this problematic and gives a representation of the metaphorical anti-immigrant/“pro-Brexit” crowd exclusively through white humans--and bonus points, they can be found in both the political elite and the working class/poor. While the whiteness of fantasy races means that the real life targets of white supremacist violence (people of color) are obscured, at least this allows us to remain clear on who is responsible. That, unfortunately, changes in episode five. One of the major places where we can see this change is in the introduction of Sophie, a woman of color, who takes over her (white) father’s seat in parliament after his death. Sophie gives a speech where she mobilizes her status as a woman of color to further fantasy-racism, stating that her mother had “desert blood” and experienced racism, but that the city overcoming racism and recognizing the value of racial diversity does not apply to the “Critch” because “our differences are more than skin-deep” (ep 5, 34:15). While this is predominantly intended to differentiate real racism (which I guess has been solved?) from Fantasy Racism™, it also serves to undermine the dehumanizing politics of racism which are continuously deployed. It reassures audiences that real life racism can be solved because race is just skin deep and we’re ultimately all pretty similar. This obscures the historical and contemporary claims about “race science” and “racial difference” which often explicitly and implicitly justify racism. While in this present moment “race science” has become a more latent belief--most people laugh at the idea of measuring skulls--everyone with a White™ Facebook friend who's taken a 23-and-Me to prove they’re 0.005% African can speak to continuing beliefs in biological race theory. 

Ultimately, like many other “politically relevant” fantasy works, Carnival Row’s use of a white washed Fantasy Racism™ as a metaphor for the systems of oppression that, in the real world, affect people of color remains highly problematic. In both our personal viewing practices and in our practices of creating and curating stories, we must think critically. Storytelling is a powerful tool in shaping how we perceive and consider reality, so when we choose to tell stories that represent marginalized communities exclusively by their oppressions, and especially when we choose metaphors that participate in the fetishization of white desperation and whitewash these communities we are doing real harm. 

#carnival row #critical race theory #carnivalrow #amazon prime #essay #review #spoilers #i am white

[humblestumbler47-blog]

*The Feminine Style*

In this entry, the critical questions I will seek to analyze are: What gender norm is constructed or undone in this artifact, how is it performed, and/or how does it promote a dominant ideology over a marginalized group or push back against the ideology or gender norms?

The rhetorical artifact I will be analyzing to answer these questions is the song, “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke (feat. T.I. & Pharrell). In 2013, Gary Trust (2013) of Billboard stated that this song was named “Song of the Summer” by Billboard (”Robin Thicke's 'Blurred Lines' Is Billboard's Song of the Summer”). This song has close to 500 million views on YouTube. I must say that when I first heard it made me feel good and it made me want to dance. This was before I actually listened to the lyrics and watched the music video. Although the song is quite catchy, the norms that are depicted by the song are could be seen as problematic. The most prevalent gender norm that is constructed is that the male gender is dominant over the female gender. It is constructed by males using their power to talk women into doing what they want to do. This is not a positive message for society because it dehumanizes women. This song not only reinforces the stereotype that males are the dominant gender, but this video also projects women as sexual objects that men can manipulate. Also, the fact that the women in the video are half-dressed, not even dressed in the unrated version, could signify to young women that the only way they will be wanted by men is if they are skinny, fit, and willing to have sex with them.

According to Butler (2004), “social norms that constitute our existence carry desires that do not originate with our individual personhood,” and “that the viability of our own personhood is fundamentally dependent on these social norms.” (p. 2). This song constructs implicated social norms for individuals in our society, specifically females. There are three problematic social norms that are displayed in this song and music video that I will discuss. One social norm that is depicted in this song and video is that women are less than men, and in this case, to pleasure men is one of the reasons for their existence and to have sex with men is what they really want. This is exemplified when Thicke says; “baby it’s in your nature, just let me liberate you.”(”Robin Thicke”). Thicke implies that sex is pleasurably inherent for humankind and for this particular woman he is speaking about, sex with him will be liberating. Further, “I know you want it” is repeatedly sung throughout the song in which “it” means sex with him (”Robin Thicke”). This reiterates that what this woman really wants is to have sex with him. Another social norm that is created is that men can take what they want. Through my interpretation of the song, Thicke attempts to ward off another man that wants the same woman he wants and because he is better for her, he assumes that he can just take her, he says; “That man is not your mate and that’s why I’m gon’ take you, good girl!” The fact that he says “good girl” after he “takes” the woman signifies to me that he has established dominance over her; that he has taken what he was after (”Robin Thicke”). The last problematic social norm that stems from this song and music video that I will discuss is that the only way women will get noticed by men is if they are skinny, fit, and are willing to have sex with them. In the video, there are three men that are completely clothed and three female models who dance around wildly and practically naked. The men sing and stand still as they watch the women perform sexually appealing movements for them. It is the women who have to display to the men why they are worthy of the mens attention. If I am a woman, I may think that the only way I can achieve a male’s attention is if I am sexually appealing. What is socially constructed by this song and music video is problematic because it dehumanizes women. According to the norms that are depicted, males are the dominant gender, they can control and manipulate women and get them to do what they want, and the only way that women will hold importance to males is through their sexual attraction toward them. 

Butler (2004) recognizes that dehumanization, or social norms or processes that weaken the human qualities of a particular group of individuals, “have far-reaching consequences for how we understand the model of the human entitled to rights,” and that “certain humans are recognized as less than human, and that form of qualified recognition does not lead to a viable life.” (p. 2). I am not trying to argue that the women that are displayed and talked about in this video do not live, or have the opportunity to live, a viable life. Maybe this is a viable life for the women and men in the video. Instead, I am saying that the norm that this song constructs dehumanizes women. This is problematic because the song makes women seem less than men and that men hold power over women. I do not hold a woman’s perspective but I can say that I would never want to be treated as less than another person nor would I want to make myself highly sexualized in order to please somebody. Also, as a male, it makes me uncomfortable that some women might think that if I can achieve sexual relations with a woman, that is what I am after. Not true. This social norm damages both men’s and women’s identities. If we wish to change how men and women are viewed, rhetoric can help. Butler implies that how we speak about gender and sexuality creates social construction and this social construction can break old norms and create new ones. She reiterates that rhetoric does not simply reflect reality, it creates it. If we change how we speak about gender we can create new norms that are just for all humans.

I would like to say that this song has advantages along with disadvantages, but I am afraid that I have far more implications to offer. If there is an advantage, it would be that it gets us thinking about the social norms that are constructed in our society and lets us decide if this is how we want to be identified. If this is not an example of how we would like to be identified in society, we have the ability to speak about it, like I am currently doing. However, I have several problems with the norms this song projects, many of which I have already discussed. From a personal standpoint, many girls that I know, including my sister, tell me how assertive men are towards sex and many times sex is not what these girls want. It becomes very problematic if the assertiveness turns to forcefulness. It is selfish of males to think and actively speak of females as only sexual beings that they can gain personal sexual pleasure from. As I have already discussed, it makes me uncomfortable as a male to think that some women may think that I just seek to take advantage of them for sexual pleasure. Women should be recognized for more than just their bodies. Another implication is if equality among the sexes is what we are after as a society, this does not lead us in that direction. If the kind of idea we want to idealize is gender equality, creating a video that has been viewed close to 500 million times that displays male dominance is not productive for the equality cause.

Male dominance and superiority over women is also a norm that is depicted in sports as well and the movement by women into sport is a quest toward equality. Messner (1988) states “organized sports have come to serve as a primary institutional means for bolstering a challenged and faltering ideology of male superiority in the 20th century,” and that “women’s movement into sport represents a genuine quest by women for equality, control of their own bodies, and self-definition, and as such it represents a challenge to the ideological basis of male domination.” (p. 197-198). As Messner states here, sports are also a stage in which male dominance is prevalent. Messner (1988) states that this theme is most prevalent in the sport of football; “Football’s mythology and symbolism are probably meaningful and salient on a number of ideological levels: Patriotism, militarism, violence, and meritocracy are all dominant themes.” (p. 202). Football separates the men from the women, more so than other sports because there is no women’s football. Football is a chance for men to show just how superior they are to women physically. Messner says; “Here males are given the opportunity to identify--generically and abstractly--with all men as superior and separate caste.” (p. 202). I often hear people say that football is a true “man’s sport.” This draws a line between men and women to say that because men are dominant because they are athletically superior. Relating this dominant ideology from sport to society is important because women are not weak, helpless, and dependent on men. Women hold just as much strength as men and deserve to be treated as equals. The implication of this for society is if I am a woman, I might assume that I can never be on the same social, political, economical, ect. level as men; I will never be considered as an equal. If one looks to sports to say that men are dominant, I do not think that is fair for women and other genders. Being born at a disadvantage because of a social norm is just not right. Being athletically superior does not mean that women and other genders cannot do anything equally as well, or better, than men.

In conclusion, the gender norm that is constructed in the song “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke (feat. T.I. & Pharrell) is one that exhibits male dominance over females. The song displays men manipulating women into getting what they want, which is their bodies. This is problematic for society because it dehumanizes women to a point where they are just objects of sexual pleasure for men. This theme of male dominance is also prevalent in sport. Sports are a common source in which people say that men are dominant over females. This is a problem because although men could be perceived as physically stronger than women, it does not mean that women are superior in other realms of life. Personally, I have found that some of the most athletic people I know are women. The norms that are created by society should not hold us back to who we want to be or how we want to be identified. Rhetoric is a tool that we can use to change these troublesome social norms that can create new realities for all genders and their equality. With rhetoric, we can construct and deconstruct social norms. We should think about reconstructing the norms that are displayed in “Blurred Lines.”

Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge. 1-4

Messner, M. A. (1988). Sports and Male Domination: The Female Athlete as                   Contested Ideological Terrain. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5(3), 197-211.             doi:10.1123/ssj.5.3.197

Robin Thicke - Blurred Lines Lyrics. (n.d.). Retrieved May 04, 2017, from                       http://www.metrolyrics.com/blurred-lines-lyrics-robin-thicke.html

Trust, G. (2013, September 5). Robin Thicke's 'Blurred Lines' Is Billboard's                   Song of the Summer. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from                                                 http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/5687036/robin-thickes-blurred-             lines-is-billboards-song-of-the-summer