Sunday, January 31, 2010
CBS Rejects Gay Ad
I would bore you with an analysis of the ad, but Queerty already did it for me...
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Erving Goffman and AT&T
If we are to believe The Supreme Court, corporations should be treated as individuals. So, this post looks at AT&T as an individual as they refused to extend FMLA benefits to one of their employees to take care of his ailing same sex partner. Because the man could get no traction with AT&T, even after sending an attorney-written letter and being told "that the company isn’t granting leave under FMLA because neither federal nor state law recognizes his domestic partner," he chose to take his story to the media. as a sidebar, AT&T is consistently ranked high by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for it's favorable treatment of GLBT employees.
After the media got hold of the story, miraculously, AT&T changed their tune issuing the statement: "AT&T regrets that there has been confusion over the administration of family leave with respect to registered domestic partners. AT&T has taken steps to ensure that FMLA is extended to employees with registered domestic partners for the purpose of caring for the partner, regardless of the state in which the employee resides. AT&T has a long history of inclusiveness and we embrace and celebrate diversity of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation in our workforce."
So, to get to my initial thought about how Erving Goffman fits into this story, this is pure Goffman-esque impression management. Goffman, a theorist whose work has been applied to sociology, cultural studies, media studies and a host of other disciplines, believes that life is a stage, and developed the dramaturgical approach. Goffman believes that people have to make an acceptable show of whatever they are doing. He also makes a distinction between the backstage (where actions are carried out that are hidden from the audience) and the frontstage (where the performance or action happens).
I think AT&T experienced a disconnect from their backstage and frontstage performances. It appears, at least on the surface, that AT&T didn't really believe in supporting their LGBT employees. Rather, they thought it would make for a good frontstage performance to publicly support their LGBT employees. The disconnect occurred when they were asked to again perform the role of a company that supports its LGBT employees on the frontstage. They initially didn't do it because the backstage preparation was inadequate for the role at hand.
The moral of the story is that corporations need to fully inhabit their role and ensure that they have adequately prepared backstage before it's showtime and you're called on to make us believe your frontstage performance.
After the media got hold of the story, miraculously, AT&T changed their tune issuing the statement: "AT&T regrets that there has been confusion over the administration of family leave with respect to registered domestic partners. AT&T has taken steps to ensure that FMLA is extended to employees with registered domestic partners for the purpose of caring for the partner, regardless of the state in which the employee resides. AT&T has a long history of inclusiveness and we embrace and celebrate diversity of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation in our workforce."
So, to get to my initial thought about how Erving Goffman fits into this story, this is pure Goffman-esque impression management. Goffman, a theorist whose work has been applied to sociology, cultural studies, media studies and a host of other disciplines, believes that life is a stage, and developed the dramaturgical approach. Goffman believes that people have to make an acceptable show of whatever they are doing. He also makes a distinction between the backstage (where actions are carried out that are hidden from the audience) and the frontstage (where the performance or action happens).
I think AT&T experienced a disconnect from their backstage and frontstage performances. It appears, at least on the surface, that AT&T didn't really believe in supporting their LGBT employees. Rather, they thought it would make for a good frontstage performance to publicly support their LGBT employees. The disconnect occurred when they were asked to again perform the role of a company that supports its LGBT employees on the frontstage. They initially didn't do it because the backstage preparation was inadequate for the role at hand.
The moral of the story is that corporations need to fully inhabit their role and ensure that they have adequately prepared backstage before it's showtime and you're called on to make us believe your frontstage performance.
Is Monogamy an Outdated Concept?
My initial response upon reading this story in The New York Times about monogamy in gay relationships was to wonder whether or not this was research to substantiate a long-held stereotype regarding promiscuity, particularly about gay men. And I've been around the block enough times to know two things about research 1) many subjects will tell you what they think you want to hear, and 2) a researcher can find research (even among numbers) to substantiate his or her initial hypothesis.
But upon looking at a post on Facebook from a friend and looking at the responses he received, the jury was split. Many think that monogamy is an outdated and unrealistic goal for marriage, while others believe it to be a cornerstone of a functional relationship.
Then upon re-reading the article, I changed my frame of thinking. I think the central issue here is the idea that culturally, we equate sex with love rather than as something carnal. Most people have at one point or another had sex with someone they don't love (and in some cases don't really even know). So, if we can have these carnal expressions and have them be no big deal, then why is monogamy such a cornerstone of long term committed relationships?
The chief researcher, Colleen Hoff, a psychologist and director of The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality at San Francisco State University makes the distinction that, "with straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
I think the takeaway is that as we hear people saying that marriage needs to be strengthened (by excluding gay men and women from the institution), what perhaps needs to happen is a reexamination of what the institution really means in modern times.
As Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling relationship book, "It's Not You, It's Biology" says "In 1900, the average life span for a U.S. citizen was 47. Now we’re living so much longer, ‘until death do us part’ is twice as challenging."
But upon looking at a post on Facebook from a friend and looking at the responses he received, the jury was split. Many think that monogamy is an outdated and unrealistic goal for marriage, while others believe it to be a cornerstone of a functional relationship.
Then upon re-reading the article, I changed my frame of thinking. I think the central issue here is the idea that culturally, we equate sex with love rather than as something carnal. Most people have at one point or another had sex with someone they don't love (and in some cases don't really even know). So, if we can have these carnal expressions and have them be no big deal, then why is monogamy such a cornerstone of long term committed relationships?
The chief researcher, Colleen Hoff, a psychologist and director of The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality at San Francisco State University makes the distinction that, "with straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
I think the takeaway is that as we hear people saying that marriage needs to be strengthened (by excluding gay men and women from the institution), what perhaps needs to happen is a reexamination of what the institution really means in modern times.
As Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling relationship book, "It's Not You, It's Biology" says "In 1900, the average life span for a U.S. citizen was 47. Now we’re living so much longer, ‘until death do us part’ is twice as challenging."
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Do Blacks Only Earn Awards for Negative Roles?
So read the headline of a story I saw in the Washington Informer. And on one hand, it is an important question to ask when you look at some (and I underline some three times) of the recent Black actors and actresses who have been awarded an Oscar(r) for their work. Halle Berry's win for Monster's Ball could, I believe, be seen as simply awarding a black person an Oscar because there had been so much made of the fact that no black person had won the Best Actress or Best Actor Oscar since Sidney Poitier and Hattie McDaniel. Denzel Washington's Oscar was regarded as an award not necessarily for Training Day, but for his body of work. That largely leaves Jennifer Hudson, who, while fantastic in Dreamgirls, was largely awarded an Oscar because of her back story (booted from American Idol, told she'd never make it, and persevering).
Which brings us to Mo'Nique. Her portrayal can certainly be construed as being a negative portrayal of blacks, particularly inner city blacks, but the fact remains that her performance is riveting and comes from her gut. Personally, I don't like Mo'Nique, but I absolutely have to take my hat off to her for pulling one of the year's best performances out of her hat.
But looking at the number of roles that blacks have played and the number of movies starring black actors, it is shocking that the list of those who have been awarded (or even nominated) is fairly short. I'm still pretty shocked that none of the actors in The Secret Life of Bees were even mentioned during awards season, particularly Queen Latifah or the criminal absence of Idylwild from the award season.
I do believe that black actors garner far less respect in Hollywood, particularly underrated actors like Angela Bassett, Lawrence Fishburn and Alfre Woodard -- just to name a few. I am certainly not an advocate of nominating an actor just because he or she happens to be black, but it'd be nice to see more color at the Oscars.
Which brings us to Mo'Nique. Her portrayal can certainly be construed as being a negative portrayal of blacks, particularly inner city blacks, but the fact remains that her performance is riveting and comes from her gut. Personally, I don't like Mo'Nique, but I absolutely have to take my hat off to her for pulling one of the year's best performances out of her hat.
But looking at the number of roles that blacks have played and the number of movies starring black actors, it is shocking that the list of those who have been awarded (or even nominated) is fairly short. I'm still pretty shocked that none of the actors in The Secret Life of Bees were even mentioned during awards season, particularly Queen Latifah or the criminal absence of Idylwild from the award season.
I do believe that black actors garner far less respect in Hollywood, particularly underrated actors like Angela Bassett, Lawrence Fishburn and Alfre Woodard -- just to name a few. I am certainly not an advocate of nominating an actor just because he or she happens to be black, but it'd be nice to see more color at the Oscars.
Race and Ugly Betty
In the interest of full disclosure, I am heart broken that Ugly Betty has been canceled. Yes, the second and third seasons left a bit to be desired, but this season, its last, was really a creative renaissance for the show. When I read the story on Huffington Post, I did something I rarely do -- I read the comments and ran across this comment from SpoooonBK who said: "Ugly Betty is currently the only sitcom on American TV that focuses on an honest and positive portrait of a Latino family. We need shows like this. It is a shame that this is happening."
One of the things I find problematic about the statement is the use of the word positive to encompass the presentation of the Suarez family. Positive is such a subjective term when speaking about any presentation of a group of people on television. And for everything that we might deem positive about Ugly Betty, there are also things that could be construed as negative like the idea that Hilda was an unwed, teenage mother or that Hilda embodies the stereotype of the loud, sassy Latina women.
Whether Ugly Betty is ultimately remembered as a positive or negative portrayal of Latino families is a moot point. What is important is that another quality program is biting the dust and it's a sad day for television viewers.
One of the things I find problematic about the statement is the use of the word positive to encompass the presentation of the Suarez family. Positive is such a subjective term when speaking about any presentation of a group of people on television. And for everything that we might deem positive about Ugly Betty, there are also things that could be construed as negative like the idea that Hilda was an unwed, teenage mother or that Hilda embodies the stereotype of the loud, sassy Latina women.
Whether Ugly Betty is ultimately remembered as a positive or negative portrayal of Latino families is a moot point. What is important is that another quality program is biting the dust and it's a sad day for television viewers.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
American Idol and The Carnival
I have reluctantly been watching American Idol this season. If I'm truly honest with myself, I watch it more out of habit than actually deriving any sense of enjoyment at seeing the "next great pop star" born before my eyes. Now, don't get me wrong, I am fully willing to get into the TV gutter by watching shows like America's Next Top Model (although the winner never becomes a "top model"). But each year, there seems to be more of an emphasis on the bad, grotesque or belligerent rather than necessarily the talented.
Watching American Idol this year I have been struck by Mikhail Bakhtin's thoughts on the Carnavalesque. "Bakhtin likens the carnivalesque in literature to the type of activity that often takes place in the carnivals of popular culture. In the carnival, as we have seen, social hierarchies of everyday life—their solemnities and pieties and etiquettes, as well as all ready-made truths—are profaned and overturned by normally suppressed voices and energies. Thus, fools become wise, kings become beggars; opposites are mingled (fact and fantasy, heaven and hell)."
What's happened is that people like William Hung and most recently Larry Platt have become the "stars" of American Idol rather than the ones who have "real talent." And while William Hung's (and undoubtedly Larry Platt's) star will fade, so too has Ruben Studdard's and Clay Aiken's (the winner and runner-up, respectively, of Season 2 of American Idol).
Bakhtin's idea that we focus on the grotesque, the sensual, the embodied and the excessive, really speak to our celebrity-obsessed culture where novelty often outweighs any discernible level of talent.
Watching American Idol this year I have been struck by Mikhail Bakhtin's thoughts on the Carnavalesque. "Bakhtin likens the carnivalesque in literature to the type of activity that often takes place in the carnivals of popular culture. In the carnival, as we have seen, social hierarchies of everyday life—their solemnities and pieties and etiquettes, as well as all ready-made truths—are profaned and overturned by normally suppressed voices and energies. Thus, fools become wise, kings become beggars; opposites are mingled (fact and fantasy, heaven and hell)."
What's happened is that people like William Hung and most recently Larry Platt have become the "stars" of American Idol rather than the ones who have "real talent." And while William Hung's (and undoubtedly Larry Platt's) star will fade, so too has Ruben Studdard's and Clay Aiken's (the winner and runner-up, respectively, of Season 2 of American Idol).
Bakhtin's idea that we focus on the grotesque, the sensual, the embodied and the excessive, really speak to our celebrity-obsessed culture where novelty often outweighs any discernible level of talent.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
What is Blackness?
A while ago, I watched this video on youtube of Audra McDonald singing a song written and originally performed by the talented and under-appreciated Laura Nyro. One of the commentators remarked that Laura Nyro, a Jewish singer, sang "blacker" than Audra McDonald. In other words, the commentator implies that there is something inherently "black" about the way someone sings and that Audra McDonald, with her opera-trained voice delivers songs in a way that is "less black" than Laura Nyro.
Which begs the question, what is blackness? And more importantly, how is it objectively identified? And why does degree (or lack) of blackness even matter among black people? Is recent Kennedy Center honoree Grace Bumbry less black than, say Mary J. Blige because of the kind of music she sings?Is Terrence Howard "more black" than Will Smith because of the types of movies in which he stars? Or is Tiger Woods "less black" (I know he's bi-racial...) than Michael Jorndan because he excels at golf rather than basketball? Or is Lauren Anderson, former prima ballerina and THE ONLY black woman to be a prima ballerina in an American ballet company, less black than Judith Jamison?
Identifying things as black, with black referring to a state of being rather than a race or ethnicity is a very slippery slope. It limits what the realms of possibilities for black people.
Perhaps it's a defense mechanism to reject those things that have historically been off-limits or difficult-to-achieve for blacks like opera, golf and ballet. Whatever the root cause, if we want to truly achieve post-racialism (like the media want us to believe we have), we have to stop pigeonholing and stereotyping groups of people. It starts, I believe, with the representations we have of people on television. We still have very limited portrayals of people of color on television. It takes more than to just count the numbers of people of color on television but to look at what occupations they perform, what is their socio-economic status level, and their relationship status. When we truly have a sustained group of representations on television shows, movies and most importantly on the news (I won't even start in on the racialized way in which news is presented), we may begin to see a change in what we describe as "blackness."
Which begs the question, what is blackness? And more importantly, how is it objectively identified? And why does degree (or lack) of blackness even matter among black people? Is recent Kennedy Center honoree Grace Bumbry less black than, say Mary J. Blige because of the kind of music she sings?Is Terrence Howard "more black" than Will Smith because of the types of movies in which he stars? Or is Tiger Woods "less black" (I know he's bi-racial...) than Michael Jorndan because he excels at golf rather than basketball? Or is Lauren Anderson, former prima ballerina and THE ONLY black woman to be a prima ballerina in an American ballet company, less black than Judith Jamison?
Identifying things as black, with black referring to a state of being rather than a race or ethnicity is a very slippery slope. It limits what the realms of possibilities for black people.
Perhaps it's a defense mechanism to reject those things that have historically been off-limits or difficult-to-achieve for blacks like opera, golf and ballet. Whatever the root cause, if we want to truly achieve post-racialism (like the media want us to believe we have), we have to stop pigeonholing and stereotyping groups of people. It starts, I believe, with the representations we have of people on television. We still have very limited portrayals of people of color on television. It takes more than to just count the numbers of people of color on television but to look at what occupations they perform, what is their socio-economic status level, and their relationship status. When we truly have a sustained group of representations on television shows, movies and most importantly on the news (I won't even start in on the racialized way in which news is presented), we may begin to see a change in what we describe as "blackness."
Monday, January 4, 2010
And so it begins... The Case Against The Bachelor
Tonight begins the most recent installment of The Bachelor. And as is usual, we are presented with a square-jawed, matinee idol-looking white male that represents masculinity and desirability.
My issue with The Bachelor and its sister show, The Bachelorette has always been that they both seem to be an ode to white, heterosexual love. We've never seen a Bachelor or Bachelorette of color on either show. And while there is a concerted effort to include people of color as potential mates for The Bachelor (and the Bachelorette) we all know that the person of color will never be around to receive "the final rose." This has been an aspect of the show that has always bugged me, but I must admit that the start of The Bachelor has converged with my reading of Erica Childs' well-written and thoroughly enjoyable "Fade to Black and White" which talks about issues of interracial images in pop culture. So where are the Bachelors and Bachelorettes of color? Where are the gay or lesbian Bachelors and Bachelorettes (and Boy Meets Boy doesn't count)?
We anecdotally hear about the increase instances of interracial couplings, but we certainly don't see that reflected on television. Is it that television truly experiences what sociologist William Ogburn calls a culture lag? Are we a country that is still so racially divided that to see a dating show with real, potential interracial couplings would be too upsetting? Or is it something else?
My issue with The Bachelor and its sister show, The Bachelorette has always been that they both seem to be an ode to white, heterosexual love. We've never seen a Bachelor or Bachelorette of color on either show. And while there is a concerted effort to include people of color as potential mates for The Bachelor (and the Bachelorette) we all know that the person of color will never be around to receive "the final rose." This has been an aspect of the show that has always bugged me, but I must admit that the start of The Bachelor has converged with my reading of Erica Childs' well-written and thoroughly enjoyable "Fade to Black and White" which talks about issues of interracial images in pop culture. So where are the Bachelors and Bachelorettes of color? Where are the gay or lesbian Bachelors and Bachelorettes (and Boy Meets Boy doesn't count)?
We anecdotally hear about the increase instances of interracial couplings, but we certainly don't see that reflected on television. Is it that television truly experiences what sociologist William Ogburn calls a culture lag? Are we a country that is still so racially divided that to see a dating show with real, potential interracial couplings would be too upsetting? Or is it something else?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
