Friday, April 17, 2009
Move?
I think I might move this site to another blog hosting site. Why? Two reasons: 1) stats embedded. In blogger, this is a pain to set up. 2) Putting posts below the fold. This is even more annoying to set up in blogger.
Expect a site move soon.
Expect a site move soon.
Whedon and orientalism
I haven't posted in over a week. Cause I suck. Well, mostly cause I am busy.
Joss Whedon. Cult leader. Adored by many. Creator of Teh Slayorz. Racist? Hah. Well, probably not. But, orientalist? A little.
I've been made aware through a student and the webz and a niggling in the back of my head since it came out that the Firefly/Serenity series exhibits some of the classic signs of Orientalism.
1) Take the premise: A future where China and America become the Alliance. Kudos to the acceptance of an Asian civilization as potentially powerful enough to match the 'West'. Though, as one instructor asks, might this speak to the recent refurbishing of 'the yellow peril' as the 'China threat'? Perhaps. The Alliance does speak to the fears of authoritarian rule, and there is a long standing trope of the Oriental despot. But, we don't really see evidence of this being referenced in the series. Further, the critique of power/authority explicated in the film seems to follow a tradition Eurocentric liberal schema. So, no, it doesn't refurbish the orientalist trope of the despotic oriental.
2) If China is the shared cultural touchstone of the firefly universe, we see no embodied evidence of it. While the sets and trappings of the universe are bathed in a superficial 'Oriental' mishmash of Chinese culture, and the characters attempt to swear in Mandarin, we see very few Asian characters, except for a few extras. As Hyphen Blog states here: "If I had a dollar for every science fiction perpetrator who used Asian languages as a signpost of the future, BUT NOT ASIAN PEOPLE ... well, I'd have a bunch of dollars." The criticism here is that this absence of Asians in a world where they are supposedly integral plays into the orientalist trope of the 'inscrutable Asian' who manipulates sneakily behind the scenes. Etc. The argument is interesting. Claire, the author, says: "In the world of Serenity, Asians are literally inscrutable. We somehow rule the universe enough to get our main lingo (Chinese, natch) spoken everywhere, yet you can't scrut us. Anywhere." And, on the other hand, in Bladerunner, which opens to a setting with a similar premise, we can imagine another world: "the massive moving billboards of future cities burdened with the facets of Asian beauty and Asian power. The politicians you'll love to hate will be Asian. The CEOs who own them will be Asian. The guy in the corner store? Still Asian, but so, too, the cops that park there illegally to grab a dozen you tiu with their coffee, and the kid that stupidly holds up the store while the cops are there. You can't make up, like, over half the world's population, be poised to swoop down upon the new global economy like a hawks on a dazed field mouse, and not end up everywhere." This makes sense from a North American view, because replace Asian with white here, and that is what power looks like in North America today. We are so immersed in it, we take it for granted. The fact that this doesn't happen in Firefly says something.
2a) One thing to note, here, is that this argument can be complicated by the critique of race as culture. They are not the same. Both categories are shifting sites of hermeneutic performance. Race is a contested category, especially noticeable for anyone who inhabits what we locate as 'mixed-race' positioning. Culture too is not static. And since world war two we've had a general popular understanding that culture does not equal race. So this further shakes up the issue. But, equally, people do build interpretive constructs based on the notions of race and culture. They act and think based on them, and these are not neutral ideas people hold about race/culture. They are structurally codified, and much of how we see race/culture fits within semiotic structures that need hyper-vigilance to untangle. And this is where Claire is probably on to something. No Asians in a half Chinese universe? Seems... inscrutable.
3) The issue of appropriation and cultural imperialism holds equally well here. Whedon is happy to take the spoils of the pretty objects, the material culture of China (or really, Asia in general AS China--the trappings are often a hodgepodge), without Asians having any stake in their use. We've seen this before as colonialism. Museums, for example. The complicity of power/knowledge that allows Whedon to do this is different than, say, China taking up Western window dressing. Why? Because Asian appropriation of the West is placed within a politico-epistemic context wherein that appropriation is labeled modernization. When the balance of power shifts, I think we will be shocked at what Occidentalism looks like. The power that allows Western appropriation of Asian culture is the same power that Said speaks of when he says that Orientalism is facilitated by the power of Europe to be there. This is an unequal and loaded power. Firefly is the practice of it in a cultural sense.
4) The taking up of vaguely Asian mish-mash under the sign of China is classic orientalism. It has nothing to do with China, expect on the surface, but everything to do with Western imaginings of some vague, exotic Asia that it has the power to represent.
5) The issue of representation is one of power. The latest stink about the movie version of Last Airbender is a good example. See here for an analysis. Thea Lim at Racialicious argues that Joss Whedon suffers from a similar problem in general, and specifically in his new show Dollhouse.Even in a universe where half of the dominant power structure is supposedly Asian, there are no main Asian characters. When the show takes the troupe to Alliance controlled domains, there are still no Asian actors. Aside from appropriation, this is an issue of representation. It is well-known that Joss identifies as a feminist. And it shows. He often attempts to and almost as often succeeds at providing strong, complex, well-represented female characters. It seems pretty clear that in this regard he is aware of the issue of representation and women in television and film. So why not with other issues, like race and class? I'll leave the answer to that question for the reader.
Epilogue: Now, don't get me wrong. I like a lot of Whedon's work. I have gotten hundreds of hours of pleasure watching his many shows. Nonetheless, there are issues with Whedon's worldview that can be challenged. We can, and I have, done the same with Gandhi and Mother Theresa. They too have their issues. "White-washing" our heroes does a disservice to any self-understanding of ourselves as heroes. If they are perfect, and we rationalize or ignore their flaws, then we will never measure up. Regardless, this need not be about him in particular. We can point to so many others who do the same. The issue here is one of Orientalism: the systemic episteme that allows for the kinds of things I speak to above. How we combat disempowering discourses and activities is by being aware of them and not just replicating them. We can challenge it when we see it. We can shake up these discourses only when we know how they operate. As such, perhaps I can offer this post as a gift to Joss because I am a fan, however critical a fan I may be.
Joss Whedon. Cult leader. Adored by many. Creator of Teh Slayorz. Racist? Hah. Well, probably not. But, orientalist? A little.
I've been made aware through a student and the webz and a niggling in the back of my head since it came out that the Firefly/Serenity series exhibits some of the classic signs of Orientalism.
1) Take the premise: A future where China and America become the Alliance. Kudos to the acceptance of an Asian civilization as potentially powerful enough to match the 'West'. Though, as one instructor asks, might this speak to the recent refurbishing of 'the yellow peril' as the 'China threat'? Perhaps. The Alliance does speak to the fears of authoritarian rule, and there is a long standing trope of the Oriental despot. But, we don't really see evidence of this being referenced in the series. Further, the critique of power/authority explicated in the film seems to follow a tradition Eurocentric liberal schema. So, no, it doesn't refurbish the orientalist trope of the despotic oriental.
2) If China is the shared cultural touchstone of the firefly universe, we see no embodied evidence of it. While the sets and trappings of the universe are bathed in a superficial 'Oriental' mishmash of Chinese culture, and the characters attempt to swear in Mandarin, we see very few Asian characters, except for a few extras. As Hyphen Blog states here: "If I had a dollar for every science fiction perpetrator who used Asian languages as a signpost of the future, BUT NOT ASIAN PEOPLE ... well, I'd have a bunch of dollars." The criticism here is that this absence of Asians in a world where they are supposedly integral plays into the orientalist trope of the 'inscrutable Asian' who manipulates sneakily behind the scenes. Etc. The argument is interesting. Claire, the author, says: "In the world of Serenity, Asians are literally inscrutable. We somehow rule the universe enough to get our main lingo (Chinese, natch) spoken everywhere, yet you can't scrut us. Anywhere." And, on the other hand, in Bladerunner, which opens to a setting with a similar premise, we can imagine another world: "the massive moving billboards of future cities burdened with the facets of Asian beauty and Asian power. The politicians you'll love to hate will be Asian. The CEOs who own them will be Asian. The guy in the corner store? Still Asian, but so, too, the cops that park there illegally to grab a dozen you tiu with their coffee, and the kid that stupidly holds up the store while the cops are there. You can't make up, like, over half the world's population, be poised to swoop down upon the new global economy like a hawks on a dazed field mouse, and not end up everywhere." This makes sense from a North American view, because replace Asian with white here, and that is what power looks like in North America today. We are so immersed in it, we take it for granted. The fact that this doesn't happen in Firefly says something.
2a) One thing to note, here, is that this argument can be complicated by the critique of race as culture. They are not the same. Both categories are shifting sites of hermeneutic performance. Race is a contested category, especially noticeable for anyone who inhabits what we locate as 'mixed-race' positioning. Culture too is not static. And since world war two we've had a general popular understanding that culture does not equal race. So this further shakes up the issue. But, equally, people do build interpretive constructs based on the notions of race and culture. They act and think based on them, and these are not neutral ideas people hold about race/culture. They are structurally codified, and much of how we see race/culture fits within semiotic structures that need hyper-vigilance to untangle. And this is where Claire is probably on to something. No Asians in a half Chinese universe? Seems... inscrutable.
3) The issue of appropriation and cultural imperialism holds equally well here. Whedon is happy to take the spoils of the pretty objects, the material culture of China (or really, Asia in general AS China--the trappings are often a hodgepodge), without Asians having any stake in their use. We've seen this before as colonialism. Museums, for example. The complicity of power/knowledge that allows Whedon to do this is different than, say, China taking up Western window dressing. Why? Because Asian appropriation of the West is placed within a politico-epistemic context wherein that appropriation is labeled modernization. When the balance of power shifts, I think we will be shocked at what Occidentalism looks like. The power that allows Western appropriation of Asian culture is the same power that Said speaks of when he says that Orientalism is facilitated by the power of Europe to be there. This is an unequal and loaded power. Firefly is the practice of it in a cultural sense.
4) The taking up of vaguely Asian mish-mash under the sign of China is classic orientalism. It has nothing to do with China, expect on the surface, but everything to do with Western imaginings of some vague, exotic Asia that it has the power to represent.
5) The issue of representation is one of power. The latest stink about the movie version of Last Airbender is a good example. See here for an analysis. Thea Lim at Racialicious argues that Joss Whedon suffers from a similar problem in general, and specifically in his new show Dollhouse.Even in a universe where half of the dominant power structure is supposedly Asian, there are no main Asian characters. When the show takes the troupe to Alliance controlled domains, there are still no Asian actors. Aside from appropriation, this is an issue of representation. It is well-known that Joss identifies as a feminist. And it shows. He often attempts to and almost as often succeeds at providing strong, complex, well-represented female characters. It seems pretty clear that in this regard he is aware of the issue of representation and women in television and film. So why not with other issues, like race and class? I'll leave the answer to that question for the reader.
Epilogue: Now, don't get me wrong. I like a lot of Whedon's work. I have gotten hundreds of hours of pleasure watching his many shows. Nonetheless, there are issues with Whedon's worldview that can be challenged. We can, and I have, done the same with Gandhi and Mother Theresa. They too have their issues. "White-washing" our heroes does a disservice to any self-understanding of ourselves as heroes. If they are perfect, and we rationalize or ignore their flaws, then we will never measure up. Regardless, this need not be about him in particular. We can point to so many others who do the same. The issue here is one of Orientalism: the systemic episteme that allows for the kinds of things I speak to above. How we combat disempowering discourses and activities is by being aware of them and not just replicating them. We can challenge it when we see it. We can shake up these discourses only when we know how they operate. As such, perhaps I can offer this post as a gift to Joss because I am a fan, however critical a fan I may be.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Asian Women's Carnival
I ostensibly started this blog for me. However, a deeper and more insidious purpose was to write about issues of Asia, feminism, orientalism, colonialism and representation. Among other things. So, it was really great for me to see this carnival of Asian women writers talking about how they see the world. Many perspectives are diaspora perspectives in the carnival, which says something in its own right. Anyway: here is the link:
http://community.livejournal.com/yennenga/2759.html
http://community.livejournal.com/yennenga/2759.html
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Heartening
Over at shakesville, there is the following Question of the day:
I wish I had a ready answer... but reading the comments is heartening. EDIT: honestly reading them is making me tear up. Some highlights for me:
PizzaDiavola:
sunflwrmoonbeam:
Solitary:
lauredhel:
There's more. It's the little things...
What was the last encouraging sign (outside the blogosphere) you saw that womanism/feminism is still on the march?
I wish I had a ready answer... but reading the comments is heartening. EDIT: honestly reading them is making me tear up. Some highlights for me:
PizzaDiavola:
Also, I got fed up with a friend's constant use of "hag" and "bitch" when complaining about his female colleagues and yelled at him. He apologized and said he wouldn't do it anymore, and then said that being told that it was inappropriate and sexist was helpful. I was pleasantly surprised that he didn't get defensive and make excuses, which is the response I usually get (e.g. "I call everyone a bitch, so it's gender-neutral."), and then was flabbergasted when he said it was helpful and please keep doing it. I've never heard that from anyone I know outside the blogosphere.
sunflwrmoonbeam:
This afternoon, we got life insurance on my husband, and my middle aged insurance agent (with whom we have several policies) actually asked me what my last name was after he already had my husband's.
Solitary:
I'm a substitute teacher and I had 7th graders - roughly 12-13 years old - the other day. One of the boys - ugh - piped up that 'boys were better than girls'. Before I could even pick up my jaw from the floor, all four girls and two of the boys basically read him the riot act and spent the rest of the class 'proving' him wrong. We didn't get much math done, but I left a note for the regular teacher and considered it a fair trade off. :)
lauredhel:
This is a really small thing, but my six year old son and our neighbour, also a boy, played a chasey game a couple of days ago which they built a fantasy world around, involving them taking turns being an "enchantress" character. It really hit me how rarely you see primary school age boys role-playing female characters.
There's more. It's the little things...
Monday, March 30, 2009
Atlas should just go away already
Awesome quote (hattip: Ampersand) by Kung Fu Monkey:
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Heidegger on Time
As someone who has a deep ambivalence towards the present structure of modern capitalist society, especially the notions of work and leisure, I feel moved to note Heidegger's comments on time in What is Called Thinking?:
I wonder about us as an imaginative species at this moment in time. We choose to create the world based on how we imagine it (with the qualification that as individuals, we may feel powerless to do such because of the various structures that order our world). I feel, given our "advances" that we exhibit a deep lack of imagination such that we haven't created a world where "technology" isn't working for us in more healthy and imaginative ways. What weakness is shown by our imagining and creation of a world where every moment is taken up by the work/leasure diad--where all of our individual activities are framed in as a contribution to the work of the economy, or leisure to support this work. If there is a revolution, I think it needs to start with re-imagining how we want to see our daily lives. It needs to begin with the question of how we make the modern work for us. Let us have a revolution of play, where work is the minimal support for play; let us discard the structure of leisure, where it is the minimal support for work. Perhaps we should bring back the 19th century question of alienation with this new thinking in mind.
Today's reckoning in sports, for instance, with tenths of seconds, in modern physics even with millionths of seconds, does not mean that we have a keener grasp of time, and thus gain time; such reckoning is on the contrary the surest way to lose essential time, and so to "have" always less time. Thought out more precisely: the growing loss of time is not caused by such a time reckoning--rather, this time reckoning began at that moment when [humans] suddenly became un-restful because [they] had no more time. That moment is the beginning of the modern age.
I wonder about us as an imaginative species at this moment in time. We choose to create the world based on how we imagine it (with the qualification that as individuals, we may feel powerless to do such because of the various structures that order our world). I feel, given our "advances" that we exhibit a deep lack of imagination such that we haven't created a world where "technology" isn't working for us in more healthy and imaginative ways. What weakness is shown by our imagining and creation of a world where every moment is taken up by the work/leasure diad--where all of our individual activities are framed in as a contribution to the work of the economy, or leisure to support this work. If there is a revolution, I think it needs to start with re-imagining how we want to see our daily lives. It needs to begin with the question of how we make the modern work for us. Let us have a revolution of play, where work is the minimal support for play; let us discard the structure of leisure, where it is the minimal support for work. Perhaps we should bring back the 19th century question of alienation with this new thinking in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)