In his essay, “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse,” Homi Bhabha introduces the concept of colonial mimicry as “the desire for a reformed, recognizable Other, as a subject of difference that is almost the same, but not quite” (Bhabha, 1984, p. 126). He argues that the colonizer desires to improve the “other” and make him similar to himself, but in a way that maintains a clear sense of the difference between them. The menace of mimicry is a double vision that disrupts colonial authority – in mimicry’s course of producing imitators rather than exact replications, the power of the colonizer is deconstructed and threatened.

In the clip from The Tyra Bank’s Show, Liz, a Korean-American woman, underwent a surgical procedure to increase the size of the fold on her eyelid. Although she admits she was teased as a child for being Asian and differing from atypical American standards of beauty, she attests she did not get the surgery to look more Caucasian, as Tyra suggests. She tells the audience that as a child she would look in the mirror and know that she was “very different from everybody else” and from what she knew “to be beautiful or pretty” (“Tyra Banks”, 2008, 1:56-2:11). Tyra turns to a doctor to ask why Asians feel that creased eyelids are prettier, to which he replies that it is a “Europeanization of beauty standards” (“Tyra Banks”, 2008, 6:03-6:06). Here, European ideals are seen as dominant, as – using Bhabha’s words – the colonizers.

Colonizers are dominant and represent the archetype that the colonial subjects should supposedly strive to reach. This suggests the desire for a uniform world free of “others” or those who deviate from the norms. As Tyra explains, her hair weave allows her to be one step closer to being a Caucasian woman, as that is society’s ideal. However, she will never be a white woman. She presents the binary of “ethnic erasing” versus “ethnic tweaking” (“Tyra Banks”, 2008, 5:19-5:24) which speaks to Bhabha’s idea of the same but different. Eyelid surgery creating a more Caucasian-looking eyelid allows Liz to appear more “white”, but this facade is only skin deep – she is still different. This discourse is problematic; it is a tease – you almost look like a white person, but not quite. The colonizer’s desire to create simulations represents the power they hold over those who are “othered”. It positions the colonizers as the expert teacher, and the colonial subjects as the students; however, no one is an expert, we are all students.

This desire to be part of the dominant group is rooted in our society. A French television show, “Dans la peau d’un Noir” (In the Skin of a Black Person), transformed a black family to be white, and a white family to be black, using pigments and wigs, in an effort “to illustrate that people are treated differently because of the colour of their skin” (Hall, n.d.). Further, an inspiring and compelling essay presented by The Washington Post paints the raw picture of what it is like to grow up as a black person in a white society. Lawrence Otis Graham writes of his and his wife’s upbringings as black children in a racist world, and outlines their efforts to do all they could to raise their children as similar as possible to that of a white child in New York. They divided their time between a suburban New York house and an apartment on Park Avenue, sent their children to a diverse private school, outfitted them in preppy clothing, taught them perfect diction, and embedded in them “that air of quiet graciousness” (Graham, 2014) in an effort to buffer their children against back stereotypes. Regardless of their extreme determination, their children were still marginalized for their race. Graham further attests that “through no fault of their own, many white men… are unaware of, or unappreciative of the white male privilege that they enjoy every day” (2014). Graham ends his essay with this: “As we observe each other and think that we have a close understanding of what it means to be black, white, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, rich or poor, we really don’t – and very often we find ourselves gazing at each other through the wrong end of the telescope. We see things that we think are there but really aren’t. And the relevant subtleties linger just outside our view, eluding us” (2014). Perhaps the “wrong end of the telescope” is the distorted view of “othering”, excluding, drawing a line between you versus me that is so prevalent (and so needing to be challenged) in our society.

To say that one gender, one race, one sexual orientation, is dominant, ideal, and “normal”, is obsolete, exclusive, and static. In today’s progressive world, the idea of the dominant group in constant competition with those who are deemed as “others” needs to be challenged. One should not feel like they have to change their hair, their clothing, their preferences, their eyelids, to fit into society’s standards. What is “normal”? Who is “normal”? In the dictionary, normal is defined as “conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2014). Who wants to be typical or expected? Not me.

References:

Bhabha, Homi. “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse.” Discipleship: A Special Issue on Psychoanalysis 28. (1984): 125-133. Print.

Graham, Lawrence Otis. “I taught my black kids that their elite upbringing would protect them from discrimination. I was wrong.” The Washington Post, 6 November 2014. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/i-taught-my-black-kids-that-their-elite-upbringing-would-protect-them-from-discrimination-i-was-wrong/

Hall, Ryan Lee. “Black family undergoes amazing transformation to become a white family.” World Wide Weird News, n.d. Retrieved from http://www.worldwideweirdnews.com/2013/11/w8164.html

“Normal”. Oxford Dictionaries. 2014. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/normal

“Tyra Banks-Asian Eyelid Surgery.” 2008. Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 11 November 2014. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOcSJSJWD60

In week 6, excerpts from Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble helped us unpack gender as a performance and specifically, how drag is used to conceal identity. I turned to “Gender Performance: The TransAdvocate interviews Judith Butler” online to get a better sense of Butler’s perspective.

Judith explains that gender being “performed” mean’s that one is taking on a role and is acting in some way, and that this acting is crucial to the gender that one is and presents to the world. Butler then proposes that gender as “performative” suggests that it produces a series of effects – “we act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of ‘being a man’ or ‘being a woman’” (Williams, 2014). She goes on to suggest that gender performativity means that nobody is a gender from the start, and that instead this identity is socially created. There are both institutional powers and informal practices (ex. bullying) which reinforce gender norms, but these need to be challenged. Butler argues that gender is culturally formed and is also a domain of agency and freedom. Gender performativity should influence us to think about gender differently that currently accepted.

The human body is a conduit for art. Drag is a form of this; it makes a burlesque of the feminine – it is hyperfeminine. As I mentioned in our class discussions, many people live in drag to different degrees. The following are pictures depicting gender performativity and how powerful our illusions are:

I think it is crucial to open up discussions around the idea of gender performativity and suggest that current theories need to be reconstructed to include and accept Butler’s evaluations. Butler’s work is progressive, inclusive, and forward in today’s world.

Williams, Cristan. “Gender Performance: The TransAdvocate Interviews Judith Butler.” The TransAdvocate. 1 May 2014. Web. 8 Nov. 2014.

“To escape consumerism and conformity, you must turn your back and ignore the mainstream culture”

 ***

In week 6 we unpacked the consumerism and conformity exemplified in Ruth Ozeki’s novel, My Year of Meats. Ozeki’s novel explores how consumerism and conformity are both driven and reinforced by media culture, and links this discourse to another consumer society: the meat industry. While Ozeki’s story is one of fiction, the implications of the novel are both relatable and applicable to the world in which we live. In My Year of Meats, Ozeki uncovers how consumers are influenced to conform to consumption “norms” through the television program, “My American Wife!” Consumers in the real world are influenced by, among a series of other means, advertizements.

Advertizements play a role in “need creation”, which is when a company convinces consumers that they need what the company has to offer. We are manipulated and fabricated into believing that the newest version of the iPhone, or the upgraded model of a certain car, or this new-and-improved device, is so much better than what we already have. This influence interrupts our daily lives, as advertizements take many forms; they intersect our television shows (commercials), appear as pop-ups on websites we frequent, flash by us as we drive (billboards), and interrupt our radio programs and songs. Whether we intentionally seek out advertizements or not, we are constantly and consistently exposed to them. Advertizements are strategically constructed and displayed so they reach a wide audience, appeal to these people, and influence conformity. In My Year of Meats, we are not exposed to advertizements for “My American Wife!”, however it is easy to envision: a 30-second commercial displaying a smiling, “authentic” American family sitting down to the dinner table, with an impeccably presented meat at it’s centre. These advertizements, which would be aired in Japan, would be designed to convince Japanese woman, in particular, that this American way of life is ideal and something to strive towards. This influence is deliberate, controlling, and works to achieve one goal: conformity in the consumers.

As a consumer, it is important to be aware of the ways in which companies (and society as a whole) work to regulate what we consume. Cross-cultural novels like My Year of Meats show that consumer conformity applies to the global world and further encourages readers to take control and self-advocate. While it is acceptable to conform to standards proposed by society, it is important that you are doing so because you want to and not because you are forced into doing so.

Identity and difference were two key concepts that we unpacked in Week 7’s discussions around Donna Haraway’s A Cyborg Manifesto. Her paper proposes the idea of a world in which gender does not exist and she draws on her notion of the cyborg to demonstrate this discourse. During our group discussion I brought the Witterick family to light in an attempt to make this far-off cyborg idea more relatable to our own lives.

A cyborg is a rejection of strict boundaries; gender is a strict boundary. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a society considers appropriate for men and women. Kathy Witterick and David Stocker, parents to two boys – Jazz and Kio – and one gender-neutral child – Storm, are choosing to raise their youngest child genderless. While their two elder children are biologically males, they are also raising them in a gender-neutral environment. Jazz and Kio have picked out their own clothes in the boys and girls sections of stores since they were 18 months old. The boys, if they choose, paint their fingernails, wear their hair in braids, dress in frilly pink dresses, and alternate between being referred to as a he or a she. While awaiting the arrival of their youngest child, Kathy and David decided to keep the sex of their child secret and let he or she tell them his or her gender when he or she is ready. The parents are giving their children the freedom to choose who they want to be, unconstrained by social norms about males and females.

The Witterick family’s story has caused much discussion, debate, and controversy; people question how the children will be treated out in the real world. However, Kathy claims she is demonstrating what the world could become in her children’s lifetime: a more progressive place. “Is it a girl or a boy?” is the first question people ask about a newborn; the Witterick parents want people to get to know their children without taking their male or femaleness into account. Haraway, whose paper was written in 1991, would praise this family’s progressive decision in today’s world.

What comes to mind when thinking about Victoria’s Secret? Lingerie, of course, but beautiful happy “angels”, high quality clothing material, fun patterns, and all-things-pink, too. Child labour is not likely to be a first thought, however this, too, is associated with the lingerie company. Although Victoria’s Secret products are far from being necessities in my life, their clothing is favoured and promoted among many, including myself. While their baby skin-soft materials almost (but not quite) mask the high prices, the labelling of products as “fair trade” and “organic” (Simpson, 2011) adds an incentive to purchase the brand. Victoria’s Secret has also sold certain special products “with the claim that each purchase improves lives in the country” (Simpson, 2011) from which it was produced.

When you walk into one of the thousand or so Victoria’s Secret stores, you are distracted by the aesthetic appearance of both the merchandise and the employees. What you do not see are the realities behind the company – in particular (among numerous other unethical dilemmas the company has been blamed with) the child labour associated with the products. Cam Simpson, for Bloomberg, uncovered and investigated the story of one particular child labourer in Burkino Faso, West Africa whose labour is the beginning step to creating the commodities. Thirteen-year-old Clarisse picks “cotton certified as fair trade”, which is then shipped to factories in India and Sri Lanka where it is fashioned into Victoria’s Secret underwear (Simpson, 2011). This discourse between the aesthetic appearance versus the reality masks the truths behind the company.

In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? this discourse is portrayed through the androids. Created for the sole purpose of working, androids are dehumanized and reduced to the effects of their labour. While they appear to be “real” humans they are degraded for not being authentic. Perhaps this speaks to Benjamin’s idea of the “aura” of original work – androids are simulated and can easily be reproduced, therefore lacking authenticity. Although their appearances differ – as each android is uniquely human-like on their exterior – they can be substituted with another android that can do the exact same work. Labourers overseas, including child workers, are original individuals, but, like androids, can be replaced by others to do identical work. They are not valued for their individualistic talents but instead for their labour. While it is easy to disregard anything beyond a product’s appearance, it is critical – and interesting – to uncover the truths behind what is presented to us.

While Victoria’s Secret is well-known for their flashy products and beautiful models, they are also credited for the charitable work the angels are associated with. While their annual fashion shows raises hundreds of thousands (and in 2012, a whopping $1.1 million) for a number of charitable organizations (Look to the Stars, 2012), VS angel’s, among many other events, host an annual “Supermodel Cycle” to raise funds for a cancer centre (Lauten, 2012).

This work does not, however, make up for the unethical means by which their products are produced. The cotton Clarisse picks is certified as “organic” and “fair trade”, and therefore should be free of such practices (Simpson, 2011). While most people are aware of issues of child labour and unethical practices around the world, putting a face to the issue – Clarisse’s – makes the problem more real. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? the distinction between “real” people and androids is the emotion of empathy. We know child labour is wrong, but we are empathetic with Clarisse for her conditions. It is easier to ignore the behind-the-scenes making of the products, but comparing Clarisse’s efforts to the commodities and their prices draws emotion. While Victoria’s Secret is profiting upwards of $10 for essentially a piece of string (ahem, underwear), the money Clarisse makes for her daily labour does not remotely compare.

While it may be a challenge to only buy products that are ethically manufactured, perhaps we as a culture can strive to not only be more informed about the realities of commodity production and consumption, but also strive to purchase ethically when we can.

References:

Lauten, Elizabeth. “Charity Goes Sexy At The Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.” Miss A. 5 Dec. 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. <http://askmissa.com/2012/12/05/charity-goes-sexy-at-the-victorias-secret-fashion-show/&gt;.

Simpson, Cam. “Victoria’s Secret Revealed in Child Picking Burkina Faso Cotton.” Bloomberg. 15 Dec. 2011. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-15/victoria-s-secret-revealed-in-child-picking-burkina-faso-cotton.html&gt;.

“Victoria’s Secret Angels Host Supermodel Cycle To Benefit Charity.” Look to the Stars. 17 July 2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. <https://www.looktothestars.org/news/8655-victorias-secret-angels-host-supermodel-cycle-to-benefit-charity&gt;.

The concept of authenticity in relation to the culture industry is constant throughout all three works, however the perspectives differ between Benjamin, Horkheimer and Adorno, and Bazin. In Benjamin’s essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, he defines authenticity as “the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning” (Benjamin 221), accentuating the significance of the historical context. Authenticity, in Horkheimer and Adorno’s “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”, does not exist by Benjamin’s standards. For them, a culture so full of reproductions lacks genuine authenticity and the authors uncover how this loss functions within the culture. In Bazin’s “Adaptation, or the Cinema as Digest”, he demonstrates how consumerism leads to the disappearance of authenticity and, while the other authors look at the effects of reproductions, Bazin prefers the term adaptation. Regardless of their different perspectives, all three authors agree that true authenticity has been lost in our world full of copies.

Benjamin contends that only an original can be authentic and that “authenticity is outside technical… reproducibility” (Benjamin 220). He further stresses that when historical testimony is affected the authority of the object is jeopardized. However, he moves past the negative effects of this loss and exposes how reproductions, unlike originals, allow the audience to engage critically. He goes on to argue that “the public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one” (Benjamin 241), so although given the opportunity to engage, we don’t necessarily know how to do so. Horkheimer and Adorno look at how an object’s authenticity being jeopardized is influenced by the uniformity of the culture. They note that “under monopoly all mass culture is identical” (Horkheimer & Adorno 121) and further uncover how people are unconsciously forced into conformity. They claim that authenticity and individualism are sacrificed for the “many”: the consumers. We are born into this culture and therefore have a complete lack of control. Although Bazin views originals as inspiration for adaptations, he also unpacks how these adaptations function. He outlines how works are boiled down to the most basic principles to “spread culture” (Bazin 22) to everyone, therefore decreasing the work’s authenticity. However, are the basic principles enough to speak to the work?

In examining the ways in which authenticity functions and is lost in our modern, technological world, it is perhaps important to consider redefining authenticity. The articles were written in the 1930s and 1940s, and the concept of authenticity has not remained constant throughout the years, especially in our changing world. Authenticity is still essential today, but perhaps in a different way.