26 March 2008

Is Racial Science Back in Vogue?

For students of stereotype, and the King Kong myth, the image of the menacing black man (or gorilla) running off with the blonde beauty is one that has a reverberated throughout the history of Western civilization since the 18th century. A keystone of racial science, such images have provided scientific and artistic justification for lynchings and other murderous habits.

Lebron_voguesm

The most recent cover of Vogue magazine—appearing on news stands the same week that Barack Obama called for an end to deeply entrenched patterns of racial intolerance—resuscitates time-worn race hatred as a fashionable entertainment of the first order. In customary fashion, celebrities play the roles that are given to them, while media giants rake it in.

25 March 2008

Once More Candidate Must Answer for Religious Affiliations. YUCK!

WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT? Read all about it.

21 March 2008

Presidential Candidate Must Again Answer for Pastor's Remarks

While many Americans thought that Barack Obama's March 18th speech on "race" might encourage us to cross historic divides and begin a discussion that can move us beyond the racial, ethnic and religious distrust that keeps us from our common goals, a pastor's incendiary remarks have once again poisoned the atmosphere. Read all about it.

18 March 2008

Obama Speech Explores Stereotypes and the Toxic Social Divisions They Maintain

On Tuesday, March 18th, in Philadelphia, presidential candidate Barack Obama addressed issues of race and stereotype in ways rarely heard in American political discourse. Unlike most of the political bilge that we hear, the  speech in Philadelphia actually acknowledged people's capacity to think, comprehend profound social issues, and reflect on troubling aspects of our human condition. 

Whatever your thoughts on Obama's candidacy,  Stereotype & Society's editors encourage you to read the text (below) and invite you to respond, not to the man who gave the speech, but to the ideas, issues and historical questions that it raised. Your comments are welcome at the end of this post.

It is not any one person's responsibility to confront America's history and future. It is not one person's mission to imagine a world where entrenched social divisions can be breached for the common good. It is all of ours. 

Obama2_540

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.” 

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me.  And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

 

16 March 2008

Behind the News

The name Ashley Youmans (AKA Ashley Dupre) is now inextricably linked to the downfall of Gov. Elliot Spitzer of New York. She has been widely branded as the "high class prostitute" who brought Spitzer down, though the governor's demise was hardly her doing.

Ashley

S&S, however, has uncovered some information that offers a thus far unreported link between the young would-be singer from New Jersey and a far more creditable enterprise.

It appears that Ms. Youmans is a descendant of the same Youmans family that established The Popular Science Monthly, which began its run in 1872. In the magazine's statement of purpose, which appeared in the first issue, editor Edward L. Youmans wrote "The POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY has been started to help on the work of sound public education, by supplying instructive articles on the leading subjects of scientific inquiry.…The work of diffusing science is…clearly the next great task of civilization."

Med_science_in_1872_1

Interestingly, the stated purpose of The Popular Science Monthly was to "make its appeal, not to the illiterate, but to the generally-educated classes," a clientele far less exclusive than that of the Emperor Club VIP, the sex-for-pay ring for whom the young Ms. Youmans worked.

By the 1880s, the job of editor fell to Edward's son, William Jay Youmans.  Ashley Youmans' father, it turns out, is the most recent family member to carry on this forgotten, though once prestigious, name of William Youmans.

While none of this genealogy alters the fall of New York's former Governor Dimsdale (See N. Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter, for a fuller explanation) or the sorry straits of the young Ashley Youmans, it offers us an opportunity to see how one-word identities like "prostitute" or "hooker" can obscure the vicissitudes and ironies of the human condition.   

15 March 2008

Just Out in Paperback

The newly revised, 2008 paperback edition of Stuart Ewen and Elizabeth Ewen's Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality is now out. 

Order yours now.

New_typecasting_covesm_5

12 February 2008

Mandates v. Rights: An Open Letter to the Democratic Candidates

Dear Barak and Hillary:

I'm dismayed by the fact that the term "mandate" is being used by both of you to discuss the pressing issue of health care. A simple browse through any Thesaurus will reveal that the word connotes: "directive," "decree," "command," "order," "injunction," "edict," "ruling" and "fiat." Language is a powerful way to stereotype and discredit good ideas, and this is the wrong language to be using.

Why are you two dickering over the question of the "M-word" when discussing ensured health care? By doing so, you are employing the language that right wingers have successfully used for over sixty years to malign the idea of universal health care in the United States. It is a language they will use again. Why play their cards for them? You should be embracing the idea of a "guaranteed right to health care." 

Barak is right. As with many democratic rights--including the rights to vote or to speak freely--not all people take advantage of them. This is a shame.  But in a just society, constitutionally protected rights need to be there for all, and health care must finally stand among them.

By moving the language of the debate from one of government dictates to one of human rights, the argument will move away from technocratic jargon and into the more congenial arena of democratic values. That should be a matter of principle, not simply words.

In recent times too many Americans have become so complacent, cynical, or scared, that they think a concern for "human rights" must stop at U.S. borders. By extending the question of rights into the political debate, you can assume a necessary high ground that presently remains unoccupied.  It is essential that you note the difference between mandates and rights, and change the terms of the debate.

Whichever of you becomes President, the difference may have a fateful impact on how the move to provide guaranteed health care will play out.

In planning for the upcoming and final debate between the two of you, and then afterward, I hope this letter may be of use.

Sincerely,

Stuart Ewen

Distinguished Professor

Ph.D. Programs in History and Sociology
The Graduate Center, City University of New York

Department of Film & Media Studies
Hunter College, CUNY

02 January 2008

New Edition of Typecasting

By mid-February, a newly revised paperback edition of Typecasting: On the Arts & Sciences of Human Inequality by Stuart Ewen & Elizabeth Ewen (7 Stories Press) will be appearing in bookstores and will also be found at Amazon and other discount online booksellers. It includes newly written and revised sections not available in the original hardcover edition (2006).

A new 'Prologue'  explores disturbing connections between recently faddish scientific "discoveries" in neuroscience, genetics and evolutionary psychology, and a long history of biological determinism that has played a pivotal role in promoting ideas of innate inequality and notions of essential difference based on race, social class and gender over the stretch of centuries.

Male_and_female_luna
The book opens with a new section, "The First Divide," which explores the ways that sex and sexuality have provided a primal hothouse for ideas asserting "natural" inequalities.

14 December 2007

Stereotype in the Service of Branding: PC versus Mac

Macvspc

Which do YOU want to be?

12 December 2007

Hillary Nutcracker: What Won't They Think of Next?

Hilary_nutcracker


We invite reader comments on this cultural artifact.

04 November 2007

Kohler Endorses Interspecies Sexual Normalcy

In the aftermath of our articles on Efelide di Sanitá's astounding Theory of Interspecies Sexual Normalcy, which maintains that "at the heart of normalcy, lies a form of erotic desire that is inflamed by the prospect of interspecies pleasures," the idea has been embraced  by a growing number of people and institutions. This recent advertisement for Kohler bathroom fixtures, only underlines the growing trend.

Seahorse_womansmall

Dewy Hooey! Charade of Social Activism

The images below were spotted on a construction wall in New York City today, just as your editor was heading for Sao Paulo, Brazil, to deliver a report on the precipitous degradation of democracy in the United States in the post-9/11 period. 

Hijacking a street art sensibility, and revolutionary politics, these "defaced" anti-authoritarian posters are actually advertisements for Mountain Dew, a soft drink produced by PepsiCo. Given its high level of caffien, it has been criticized for causing agitation among children.

Dewmocracy1smaller

Dewmocracy2smaller

Which will it be? democracy or dewmocracy. Though often confused in the shell games of commercialism, there is a difference. 

17 September 2007

"The Other" Revisited, Part 2

Magazine_mermaid

In response to requests from many of our readers, we now post Part 2 of "The 'Other' Revisited."

On September 11, we published an article—'The Other' Revisited— summarizing aspects of a confidential study we had obtained.  Entitled “Revelations in a Bottle,” the study was authored by Prof. Efelide di Sanitá and a research group at the Center for Ontological and Perceptual Studies, an American affiliate of l’Academia dei Segreti (Academy of Secrets) in Italy, known as the Academia secretorum naturae when it was founded in the 1550s.*  

In the paper, the authors propose an audacious and remarkable “theory of interspecies sexual normalcy,” contending that mainstream heterosexuality—despite its widespread popularity and its endorsement by powerful institutions—is very often but a veiled expression of man’s obsessional desire to engage in bestial relations.  

We wrote:

“To many male minds, women are a whole different animal, a separate, less evolved species driven by passion over reason, animal desires over rational choice.  Because of these dangerous proclivities, the history of heterosexuality has routinely placed breeding women in captivity, restricting their mobility in society and their opportunity to live their lives to the fullest degree of their potential.

“So, at the heart of normalcy, lies a form of erotic desire that is inflamed by the prospect of interspecies pleasures.”

Bitch_barossa_grenache_2004


Extending their argument into the linguistic realm, Dr. di Sanitá and his group, have done a survey of English slang terms for “woman.”  In Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality, there is a pertinent vignette entitled “The Costermonger’s Tongue and Roget’s Thesaurus.” Drawing on the outlook of Peter Mark Roget, who compiled the first Thesaurus of the English language in 1852, the chapter explores language in general, and slang in particular, as part of a cosmological system of meanings. Words that appear in close proximity to one another offer a collective picture of a particular arena of meaning or, in some cases, of intolerance and bias.  Each region in the cosmos offers a combined picture of a way of seeing that is communicated by a constellation of conjoined words.  “Revelations in a Bottle,” employs a similar approach to language and demonstrates that the normalcy of interspecies sexuality pervades the synoptic constellation of words that are employed by men to describe their heterosexual objects of desire.

Cat_woman1 

The preponderance of animal metaphors is striking. On the most obvious level, the word “bitch,” is derived from a term connoting a female dog. But the terms extend beyond the comfort of the mammalian realm.  A “chick” is a baby chicken, from the phylum Aves. 

Animalesm

Other interspecies lexicographical evidence discussed in the study include: beaver, bird, cat, chicken head, dog, filly, fish, fox, grizzly chicken, heifer, hen, hose beast, kitty kat, moo, mustang, oyster (a mollusk!), pony, puck bunny, pussy, pussycat, quail, squirrel, stallion, tiger, trout, tuna, and yak.  The discussion of plant metaphors such as “tomato” or "flower" is fairly brief but highly evocative in terms of how broadly the general theory of interspecies sexual normalcy extends. 

The collection animal terms for men, it turns out, is much smaller. Stud and wolf both refer to men as sexual practitioners, but neither of these seem to carry the same kind of all-encompassing identity that bitch and chick do when applied to women.

Illustrating this piece, S&S offers a small sampling of visual artifacts that underline many of the linguistic findings reported on in “Revelations in a Bottle.”

Mermaid
Natasha2

Pisces  

Fishnet


______ 


* The Academy of Secrets (Academia secretorum naturae, in Latin) was founded in the 1550s by Giambattista Della Porta, the author of  Magia Naturalis (Natural Magic, also 1558).  The school was silenced by the Inquisition in 1578, but Della Porta’s influence continued well after his death in 1615.  While many believe that the Academy of Secrets disappeared in 1578, others maintain that its enterprise continues unto this day, under the most highly guarded circumstances. This cannot be verified, nor can the existence of the Center for Ontological and Perceptual Studies, whose exact location is unknown.  We must add that Efelide di Sanitá’s pregnant study came to us through the back door and, while we found it of enormous interest, we cannot vouch for its authenticity.

Della_porta1

11 September 2007

"The Other" Revisited

IN RESPONSE TO NUMEROUS REQUESTS, THIS PIECE IS BEING REPOSTED FOR THOSE WHO MISSED IT THIS SUMMER. PART II WILL BE POSTED SHORTLY.

Heterosexuality is the official carnal arrangement of Major League Baseball, the World Wrestling Federation, the Catholic Church and countless other organizations. But S&S has recently obtained a confidential study of male-female sex which maintains that heterosexuality, despite its purported normalcy, may be the kinkiest, most transgressive sexual activity of all. The study, by Efelide di Sanitá and a team of researchers, entitled "Revelations in a Bottle," is in large part based on a close analysis of a recently discovered, highly suggestive cultural artifact. Some of the paper's observations lie below.

The_other_winesm

Cultures around the world are defined by taboos against a wide range of sexual intimacies.  Most are shaped by a firm restriction against sex or mating with "the other," someone who belongs to a group perceived to be extremely strange and alien.

But heterosexuality, despite its widespread practice, is the ultimate example of bonding with "the other."  To many male minds, women are a whole different animal, a separate, less evolved species driven by passion over reason, animal desires over rational choice.  Because of these dangerous proclivities, the history of heterosexuality has routinely placed breeding women in captivity, restricting their mobility in society and their opportunity to live their lives to the fullest degree of their potential.

So, at the heart of normalcy, lies a form of erotic desire that is inflamed by the prospect of inter-species pleasures.  It has long been known that stereotypes of otherness are shaped by a combination of hatred and, at the same time, provocative sexual fantasies about "the other's" insatiable carnal proclivities.  The authors of the study point out that, consciously or not, a California vineyard has recently begun marketing a product known as "The Other'" wine [image above], a "Tastefully Seductive" potable that is, according to the label "Sin-sually Delicious."   The label, portraying an erotic line drawing of a nude woman from the rear, has her stretching out her torso like a cat in heat.

It is rare to find an historical artifact that so simply and concisely unpacks the contradictions that lie within the psychic core of a society's notion of sexual normalcy.  Sex with "the other," disallowed by cultures and civilizations for so long, turns out to live at the heart of good old fashioned male-female relations. Mating with another species, whose nature requires control, captivity and, if they disrespect the lion tamer, a beating, seems to be what standard issue men are looking for.

Jeans703516
So committed are they to this wild and wayward obsession, that they openly abhor sex with one of their own—another man— but one more contradiction in an ideology of "decency" that claims to the sanction of God.

The study suggests that this widespread fixation with interspecies relations be explored through archeological analyses of other cultural artifacts, to provide scholars with a more thorough data base on the subject.  S&S has gone to the ads for famous haberdashers, et al, to locate a small sampling of artifacts that may be worthy of examination regarding the innovative "Theory of Interspecies Sexual Normalcy," as Dottore Efelide di Sanitá, the study's primary author and Research Director of the Center for Ontological and Perceptual Studies in Truro, Massachusetts, terms it. Meanwhile, rest assured that Stereotype & Society will be reporting on other aspects of "Revelations in a Bottle" shortly.

Lizhurleyjordache

Calvinkleinjeans6

Culture3
 

(wine bottle photo © 2007 Archie Bishop)

14 August 2007

Cheney Warns Against War in Iraq

The general perception of Dick Cheney is one of a clandestine conniver and cold-blooded war monger. His years as Vice President, his callous disregard for human rights, and his blood-for-oil policies certainly give foundation to this view.

Picture_6_2

In 1994, however, Cheney gave an interview in which he was asked whether the U. S. should have gone on to invade Iraq after "Desert Storm." Surprisingly his
response to the question offered a lucid if apocalyptic analysis of what would have resulted if the United States had made the mistake of invading Iraq.  Prescient and amazing. Have a look.
 

Thanks to  Steven Gorelick for pointing us toward this extraordinary document, a stunning example of a notorious killer breaking type and actually considering consequences. 

Read The Book

Award Nominations

  • Anisfield-Wolf Award
  • National Book Award
  • Pulitzer Prize
Blog powered by TypePad