Wednesday, December 21, 2016

The Machete Cut and the Diminishing Margin Utility of Star Wars



INTRODUCTION

            I grew up with Star Wars, and I loved it. However, my childhood love of Star Wars was very, very specific. At the time, I was not interested in Space, Planets, the rebellion, blasters, war or the overall scope of George Lucas’s Sci-Fi Opera.  My love of Star Wars as a child was derived from my love and passion for the martial arts.  Therefore the only thing that I found interesting in the whole Star Wars saga was the elements that connected it to the martial arts; meaning Jedi and the Sith (Samurai) The Force (Ki, and Zen philosophy), and lightsabers (Katanas).[1]
As I got older, I dug deep into the history and the background of Star Wars to keep this connection alive. I found out that the term Jedi was derived from the Japanese term Jidaigeki meaning “period piece” which for the Japanese usually meant a story involving Samurai. George Lucas was greatly influenced by the work of Akira Kurosawa (who was ironically, influenced by American Westerns), specifically The Hidden Fortress and Seven Samurai to the point that Lucas originally offered the role of Obi-Wan Kenobi to Tashiro Mifune a frequent collaborator with Kurosawa and whom some may call his muse.[2]



Additionally, I started getting interested Zen Buddhism and philosophy by initially hanging on the words of Jedi Master Yoda whom encouraged “No mindedness”, and Passive yet passionate embrace of the life energy (Ki) in the universe. I loved (and still love) these aspects of Star Wars. Yet, whenever I decide to sit down and watch any Star Wars film I find myself skipping to, or, only paying attention to those scenes. As I grew in my appreciation for film as a medium and a mechanism for storytelling, this dissecting cycle of only watching (what I consider to be) the best bits of the Star Wars films[3] seemed masochistic. Why was I holding on to these bits and pieces of a grander story, and why did I not feel overtaken by the phenomena that is Star Wars?  The answer has everything to do with context.

ANALYSIS  
 
     “ The Personal is also Political.”- C. Wright Mills

            Sociologically speaking (from a symbolic Interactionist point of view) everything is about context.  The reality that we live in and the “truths that we cling to” as Obi Wan would say, depend on our interpretation of a specific social, cultural and historical context.  In sort, the time period when I saw Star Wars, what was happening historically both in my life and in society at that time, impact the effect of the film and in what ways that it resonated with me.  
Not being born when Episode IV was released, and being too young to see the other two films in the original trilogy during their initial theatrical run, my first exposure to Star Wars was years later on home video. Therefore, by the time that I had seen the films, the hype fanfare and cultural impact of Star Wars had waned, migrating into geek pop culture of which, at the time I had yet to be inducted.
 Additionally, it is important to note that I initially saw the original Star Wars Trilogy in reverse order. I saw it in the order of VI, V, IV. Also, I watched episodes VI and V many more times than Episode IV, because we had a taped copy of Episodes V, and VI  but not of IV. I first saw A New Hope in a hospital recovering from surgery when I was 12, many years after repeatedly seeing the other two films.  Thus, I did not feel the fear for Han Solo as he was frozen in Carbonite, the peril of Luke Skywalker as he faced Vader on Bespin, or the surprise of the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader reveal.  Because of this, much of what is in A New Hope seemed cheaper to me than in the other two films; old and out dated when compared even to its immediate predecessors.  This became even more apparent when the Prequel trilogy was released.

THE PREQUEL TRILLOGY


News of the production of the prequel trilogy first reached my ears when I was in high school. Hearing about the production it seemed like a dream come true. I was promised more of the Star Wars aspects that I loved: More Jedi, More Sith, more of “the Force”, and more lightsabers! I became even more obsessed when one of my best friends[4] told me that in this prequel trilogy (that focused on the fall of Anakin Skywalker to the dark side and the rise of  Darth Vader) would show “the epic duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin” that ended, in his mind with Obi-Wan dismembering Anakin and throwing him in a lava pit.[5] This was also the first time that I realized (through my friend telling me) that Vader, being a quadruple amputee, was a Person with a disability. (PWD)[6]
Unfortunately, whenever Darth Vader is discussed in regards to disability, it is usually only in the context of representation (of people with disabilities in media) and it is usually negative ( his disability is used to represent his villainy)  rather than positive ( that he is a PWD that is feared and respected by all in the galaxy and has reached near the height of political and religious power ( being mythic and second in abilities only to The Emperor)[7]  Needless to say the promise  of the prequels excited me; the reality was far different.
The prequel trilogy spans my entire college career, from graduating high school through grad school. In that time, and given the socio-political context in which it became a piece of popular culture, I was able to engage with the prequel trilogy in a far different way than the original trilogy. Firstly, I saw this trilogy in the theater, in order of its release, which allowed me to be properly heightened by the narrative and not be spoiled. Secondly, I saw these films when I was just getting into Sociology as a discipline and the social analysis of popular culture. Because of this, I am an apologist of the prequels in one very specific way: aside from all of the problems around it THE PREQUEL TRILOGY IS GREAT STORY ABOUT THE RISE OF FASCISM  FROM DEMOCRACY THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF WAR.



Historical Context.[8]
 By the time the empire is established in 2005 at the end of Episode III: Revenge of the Sith,  politically we were already a few months into George W. Bush’s second term. The War on Terror was in full swing as was the War in Iraq. So, seeing a political figure concentrate power in his executive office[9] by throwing us into a false war, was pertinent at the time. Though, Lucas said that the idea for the story, written decades before George W. Bush took office, was more reminiscent of Julius Cesar than the politics of the day. However, this fact has done little to stop the apt comparison between Vader/ Palpatine and Bush/ Cheney. Ironically, this comparison is often on a sliding scale, as these same comparisons are currently being made with the Trump Administration[10]



Biographical Context

    I saw Episode I: The Phantom Menace on midnight at my local Cineplex.[11]Due to the heightened situation I was in, and the effect of emotional contagion of the rest of the fans in the screening we walked away having enjoyed the film.  Yet, as the power of the experience waned, I began to see the enormous flaws with the film[12]. As the number of flaws I found grew, kept going back to the things that I loved about Star Wars and focused on what the film did give me: More Jedi, and more dynamic lightsaber duals.  With this understanding of exactly what I wanted from a Star Wars film, paltry as it was, it effectively lowered my expectations for Episodes II and III. I looked passed plot holes, wooden dialogue and acting, lack of chemistry between leads, and even more sexism and racism. I blocked all of it out, and focused on the multitude of lightsaber duels, especially the ones involving Yoda, Palpatine, Mace Windu, Dooku, and the fabled Anakin vs. Obi-Wan. Soon, whenever I went back to any of the Star Wars (including the original trilogy) I would find myself skipping around and only watching scenes that were about the force, or those that involved a lightsaber duel…and nothing else.  That means that the six film- 13+ hour story, for me, can be reduced to about 60 min.[13]



THE MACHETE CUT

Recently, in preparation for Rogue One: A Star Wars Story I wanted to go back and watch the preceding films (Episodes I II and III), however I did not want it to turn into me just skipping around to the bits and pieces that I liked. It was then that a colleague of mine (and fellow geek) told me about the machete cut, otherwise known as “The Machete Order” which is a viewing order for the first 6 films in the Star Wars saga that, according to him, and compelling.  In short, he and others are correct.
The Machete Order of the first two completed trilogies connects the “best” parts of the Star Wars story and jettisons the rest. The order (which is Episodes IV, V, II, III, and VI) retains the mystery and cliff hanging reveal of Luke Skywalker’s parentage, while maintaining continuity with the (now canonical) special editions of the original trilogy (i.e. Hayden Christiansen showing up at the end of Return of the Jedi) while fixing the errors in continuity by eliminating the need for Episode I.
The creator of The Machete Order surmises (correctly in my view) that Episode I: The Phantom Menace is meaningless to the overall story. Nothing that happens in Episode I is impactful in the overall arc of either Anakin or Luke Skywalker, not to mention that the ten year gap (in story) between Episode I and Episode II requires a large amount or reorientation anyway. Plus without Episode I,  there are no mention of Midi-chlorians, boring pod races, and an Unnecessary Sith, that has no impact on the story (unlike Christopher Lee’s Count Dooku).
In the Machete order, we get the danger of the empire and then after the end of Episode V, when our heroes are at their lowest point, we flash back to see how the Universe got to its current state. With all of the teases in Empire fresh in our heads from “I am your Father,” and “For 500 years did I train Jedi.  Once a council did I keep on who was to be trained.” to “That boy was our last hope.” “No, there is another.” watching Episodes II and III directly after that capitalizes on those teases in a more satisfying way that watching it in either Episode Order( I-VI ) or Release Order (IV, V, VI, I, II, III). However, even with the Machete order, I found it difficult to get through several parts of each film (aside from Empire, I will concede that Episode V, is a good film), I began to question whether or not The Star Wars Saga is really any good at all.


THE MARGIN OF DIMINISHED UTILITY

          The margin of diminished utility is an economic term to explain that with the continued consumption of a particular product, the greater the since of dissatisfaction one has with that product as a result.  An easy analogy is that of drug addicts, the more drugs they consume the less likely they will achieve the same high.  Though many might have a better association with the common phrase “Too much of a good thing.”. With each new Star Wars film we get, it seems to reorient out perception of the previous films. Sometimes, to fill in gaps, and other times to address criticism decades after the film’s release.[14] In the wake of this perception shift is often novelty, mystery, and in some cases actor performances, are sacrificed all in the name of continuity.  To that end, the newer iterations of Star Wars (especially since being purchased by Disney) spoon feed the audience colorful forms of childhood Nostalgia that, when it wears off or is wiped away, reveals an unoriginal story that is not only boring but not well crafted.  There are several examples of this.


     Exhibit A: The Prequels

            Outside of my unique perspective on the prequels, the majority of the Star Wars fans (not necessarily those in the mainstream) hate the prequels to the point that many of them do not consider them cannon.  In their mind, what George Lucas did was tantamount to murdering their childhood.  Yet, as indicated above, the reason many people hate the prequels is because of the way it changes our understanding of the original trilogy, mainly it weakens the badass all powerful villain of Vader, to nothing more than a whiney, petulant child that has such an ego that he never learned to accept loss to became a control freak. Through the Prequels, all of Vader’s menace evaporates, and he becomes pitiful.
            We must remember the importance of biographical context. The point at which you are exposed to Star Wars, in your life makes all the difference.  Many people who love the original trilogy as something sacrosanct often saw it when they were a kid, and the film informed on their sense of self.  You are obviously not going to get that same experience when you watch a film that is for children in your 20’s or 30’s; that is, unless they give you the exact same film (more on that later). In fact many people that saw the prequel trilogy when they were children or (gasp) saw the prequels first have a much more favorable opinion of them.      
         


          Exhibit B: The Original Trilogy

            If you take away nostalgia, and the biographical context of most audience members, what they may find is that most of the original trilogy is not very good.  Many characters aren’t fleshed out, or they are tropes[15]; it is full of poorly written dialogue delivered by many individuals that can barely act.[16] Yet, many of us want to retain these childhood memories of Star Wars, preferring instead to rely on our memory (which is suspect) rather than the sobering reality that Star Wars is a better pop cultural phenomena than they are films.
            The pop cultural impact of Star Wars cannot be denied. It is beyond itself. However, the idea of Star Wars, its merchandizing and its spectacle get muddled with the quality of the actual film. Whether this is caused by  mob mentality or group think, or something in the water, Star Wars soon to be retitled Episode IV due to its success, became something bigger than the low budget independent film it was intended to be.
The major part of the Star Wars phenomena, is not, as I have stated, because of the groundbreaking, or interesting story that the film tells. George Lucas by his own account is not a good storyteller[17] Instead, the genius of Lucas is his business acumen and his willingness to experiment. This desire for experimentation however can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it lead to the innovation of Star Wars’s visual effects at the time of its release (allowing the trilogy to continue). On the other hand, this drive of innovation caused him to also come under fire (from fans) once he released the special editions in the mid 1990’s with new VFX shots and added content[18].



Exhibit C: Episode VII: The Force Awakens

            One of the best examples of the problem with the continuing Star Wars Saga in relation to the margin of diminished utility is Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Before I become too overly critical, I have to say I commend Disney in their ads campaigns as they sharply leaned into the desired Nostalgia in a fully committed way.  Even though, as stated, I have a complicated relationship with Star Wars, I was all in for this film[19] I was swept away by the marketing, tearing up as I saw Han Solo on the Millennium Falcon saying “Chewie, we’re home.” in the final seconds of the first trailer.  I was so enthralled by the second trailer that I was a part of the group that crashed the internet trying to buy tickets. Disney had me, and I knew it. I was still enthralled during the opening fanfare, and the opening crawl. I embraced and was ecstatic about the increased amounts of diverse representation of people of color and women that were finally added to the story. However, as the story progressed, I slowly realize that I had been duped.
            I Hate Episode VII: The Force Awakens.  I hate it for the following reasons. Firstly, before its release, Disney eliminated the expanded universe in order to have complete control of the story moving forward. While I understand this from a business perspective, it eliminates years of work of many creative people and frankly, sounds like something the Empire would do.  Secondly, this film is a remake masking as a sequel.[20] It is a reshuffling of the plot and characters of a New Hope. BB-8 is R2, Rey is Luke,  Kylo is Vader, Poe is Han, and Han is Obi-Wan. There is a “Super” Death Star, and the Mcguffin is Luke Skywalker. Thus, outside of the nostalgia of seeing these characters again, the film is boring, predictable and overall lazy filmmaking. Thirdly, they killed Han.[21]
            Even though this film made over 2 billion dollars, there is a danger in relying on nostalgia as it can lead people to be complacent and malleable to antiquated ideas, which can have disastrous consequences. Yet, it seems with similar films being released around or just after  The Force Awakens, and the fact that these films make billions of dollars it is clear this requel trend is here to stay, and that The Star Wars Saga will not be ending anytime soon.

CONCLUSION

 Simply, the more Star Wars we get, the less satisfied we become.  As the Star Wars story continues into infinity it is the new thing, the fresh thing that will be embraced, as long as it makes us long for the past. Each new expanding or continuing story will reshape how we see all of the previous films.  In this cathartic process of writing about Star Wars I have come to the uncomfortable realization that I do not like the story of  Star Wars  that much. There are many other similar stories told by true auteurs, providing a more satisfying, sometimes self-contained, story that The Star Wars Saga has not achieved. I will however always embrace the pop cultural flavor of Star Wars through the movies and other merchandising material. The importance of the Jedi, Darth Vader and the concept of “the force” still informs me as a person. Therefore, I will always have investment in anything that begins “A long time ago, in a galaxy far far way…  



[1] This was my first experience of the merging of two interests: my love of Sci-Fi and of the martial arts. After watching each film I would annoyingly beg my father to duel me with a pair of plastic swords
[3] At least the original trilogy
[4] To this day, whom read a lot of the expanded Universe that has since become non-canonical
[5] Upon hearing this I had instantly created a “head cannon” where the dismemberment of Anakin happened periodically throughout the duel. I envisioned Anakin fighting with only one arm for a time only to ceremoniously end up on some scaffolding above the open mouth of an active volcano as Obi-Wan finally takes out Anakin’s legs that sends him tumbling over the side and into lava.
[6] Thus began my love affair with Darth Vader, that has grown far beyond the films.  Yes, Darth Vader has become an iconic piece of pop culture outside of the Star Wars Saga, but as a person with a disability myself, I see Darth Vader as a champion of the disability community.
[7] The Next Character profile I will do will be on Darth Vader.
[9] Which Palpatine was able to do by Manipulating Jar Jar Binks into granting him “emergency powers” In Episode II: Attack of the Clones
[11] As the story goes, it was the Friday of the premiere in May 1999. I was working on a rough draft of a paper that wasn’t due for another 4 weeks.  My mother, thinking that I was working too hard, called two of my friends to come and “get” me.  They came to the front door; my mother opened it “He’s in his room.” I heard from behind my closed door. Suddenly, my bedroom door flung open. “You’re coming with us to Episode 1.!” My friend shouted “ No!” I cried and a wrestling match ensued.  It concluded with my friend putting me in a back bear hug while the other grabbed my feet and together they carried me down the stairs and out the door (which was being held by my mother) they thanked my mother as we passed and they placed me in the back seat of the car, and took me to the movie.
[12] Midi-clorians, pod racing, Jake Loyd, weird puppet Yoda, stinted dialogue, poor story construction that was a rehash of the original trilogy, not to mention the copious amounts of Racism and Sexism throughout all seven films.
[14] A practice that Rogue One seems to be continuing
[15] Luke Skywalker, Obi Wan Kenobi
[16] This is excluding Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing
[17] Heck, in a video embedded above, Lucas basically reveals that he stole a lot from Kurosawa (even attempting to steal his main actor)
[18] The Most outrageous change he made, that actually effected the arc of a main character was having Greedo Shoot at Han first rather than Han shooting first
[19] Going so far as to buy advanced tickets and waiting in line for hours to get a proper seat for me and my friends
[20] This has become so blatant in Hollywood that it has spawned a new term “Requel”
[21] I understand the irony of this statement as I have railed against Nostalgia

Friday, December 16, 2016

Miss Sloane brings Mills back to Washington





Author’s Note: Portions of this essay-review will be re-used in a new series of posts highlighting Important and influential Sociologists

BACKGROUND



            C. Wright Mills was one of the most influential, polemic and incendiary public intellectuals of the late 20th Century. Listed as one of the greatest Sociologist to have ever lived (just behind classical Europeans like Emile Durkheim and Max Weber); C. Wright Mills and his work has been a staple of the Sociologist’s diet for at least the last 40 years.  Each year every burgeoning would-be sociologist is introduced to C. Wright Mills in Introductory to Sociology courses around the country and abroad (Usually by reading an excerpt from his influential text The Sociological Imagination). C. Wright Mills has become the base of Sociological Thought for many Sociologist working in the field today.  Yet, this was not always the case.
             During Mills’ career he was often seen as a firebrand, an instigator; especially at Columbia University  Labeled as a “Radical Nomad”[1] and a “Post Modern Cowboy”[2], many of his biographies contain stories that are so fantastical that they boarder on myth (One of my favorites is a story involving a rant he gave during one of his lectures about the how to incite a violent revolution in the US in front of President-elect Eisenhower)  His life being unceremoniously cut short in 1962 (due to a fourth and fatal heart attack) Mills never got to see the fruits of his labor, and personally bask in the recognition he so richly deserves.
            One of Mills’ most enduring concepts outside of the groundbreaking and eventually foundational notion of The Sociological Imagination in Post Civil Rights Sociology, was The Power Elite. For Mills, The Power Elite are a small group of individuals that operate within high positions of the powerful social institutions. In Mills’ work he exclusively mentions the institutions of Politics, the Military and the Economy. Additionally, today Media and Media corporations are also included.  It is through their positions (not necessarily themselves) that these “elite” wield power, and from them gain prestige (status), prosperity (wealth) and persuasion (influences).  They are often a collusive and intimate circle that isolates themselves from the general public.  If and when people speak of The Power Elite these are often names that you do not know or at most only vaguely heard of.  They are not celebrities, or media personalities, they are the visibly invisible. All of their actions are transparent and can be contentious but are far removed from the general public. It’s this collective’s decisions, or indecisions that shape society itself.[3] These are the 1% of the 1%. They are CEO’s, Congressional Committee Members, high ranking military officials, and lobbyists.


Mills (2000) describes lobbying as:

liaison work [used] when issues are firmly drawn, individuals related to the larger corporate interests are called upon to exert pressure in the proper places at the strategic time…in various subcommittees, prestigious clubs, open political affiliations and consumer relationships…within the confines of [the] elite. (p.291-292)[4]

            Lobbying is a political practice in which individuals and or groups are paid by corporations and special interests to exercise their will in congress. Typically, a corporation and/or industry will use lobbyists to sway congressional votes through the promise of campaign finance, gifts, or other more nefarious tactics in order to defeat or promote a bill. It is in the world of lobbying and the Millsian intersections of politics, special interests and corporations that the film Miss Sloane takes place.

REVIEW

            From the Film’s Marketing:

In the high-stakes world of political power-brokers, Elizabeth Sloane is the most sought after and formidable lobbyist in D.C. But when taking on the most powerful opponent of her career, she finds winning may come at too high a price.

   Plot   

         The titular Miss Sloane (I would prefer the title of Ms. Sloane) played by Jessica Chastain, is one of the most ruthless cut throat lobbyists in Washington. She is cold, calculating and rational.  As she states in the film, “[She] was hired to win, and that is what [she}does.”.  The film opens with her asked to spearhead a new campaign to promote Gun ownership in women by the NRA. She not so politely declines and decides to leave her lobbying firm to be hired by those that are lobbying congress for universal background checks for all private and public gun sales.  What follows is a political cat and mouse thriller that broadens the scope of the Millsian understanding of lobbyists and paints shades of grey with a very broad brush. 

Film analysis

        This film is a tightly wound well-paced engaging thriller that only slightly tips its hand just before delivering the twist.  Supported by terrific performances by Chastain, Waterson, and Strong this movie is efficient in its execution building to its satisfying conclusion. 
       The film stands on the shoulders of Jessica Chastain. A less capable actress would have made this a subpar film.  Chastain fills Sloane with her gravitas, giving her complexity and ambiguity. As a moviegoer, you are reviled by her and some of her tactics, yet oddly you root for her to win through her duplicity, because you loath the opposition that much more. 
       The Cinematography is subtle for this film. Some of the color is leeched out to give it a despondent feel that is reflects the kind of work (and behaviors) lobbyists are asked/required to do. There are no quick frenetic cuts that give you a feeling of hyper urgency and alertness. Over the shoulder two shots, panning and wide shots are often used to focus not on where the scene is, because everywhere starts looking the same after a while, but what is being said, is ultimately Unique.
       The Script was one of 2015’s top five on the famous Hollywood blacklist[5] a survey website that identifies the favorite, if not “unproducable” scripts/screenplays of the year. The dialogue and the care to which the audience has to listen and piece together the plot should make a fan of mysteries and tense drama swoon.  There is no moment of this film that can be missed, each scene builds upon the foundation of the previous one and helps to strengthen the proceeding scene. This is a welcome respite from the mindless explosive (both literally and figuratively) blockbusters[6] that continues to dominate cinema[7]. This is quiet, thinking person’s thriller that sheds light on society and sociological issues.

Social Issues      

        As mentioned, this film is a window into the Military-Industrial Complex that was outlined by C. Wright Mills. What this film attempts to do is humanize the corrupted industry through the characterization of Miss Sloane and the supporting cast of the film. Lobbying in this film, much like “the force” in the Star Wars Universe, is treated as a constant (of our socio-political system) and can be used for “good” (in the case of the film to created stricter background checks) or “bad” (the manipulation of the justice system to make gun laws more lax). Either way both parties, regardless of their intentions operate in a morally grey space, akin to Utilitarian philosophies, specifically Consequentialism[8] While this may make many people uncomfortable, especially those whom are either morally pure or anti-establishment, if we look to Max Weber[9], whose work was instrumental to Mills’ own writings, we see that the bureaucratic system (of which the Military Industrial Complex is a part) exists as a system that is constant, regardless of the players that are involved.
        Like many other Anti-heroes before her, Elizabeth Sloane is the wild card to fight against a corrupted system, because she is a product of that corrupted system. Because of that the film’s ending ultimately “takes her off the board” mainly because we can not be sure that on a separate social issue, Miss Sloane would be on “the right side.”, which makes her both compelling and interesting.


CONCLUSION

         I cannot recommend this film enough, both as a cinephile and as a sociologist.  Those sociologists whom have an admiration for the works of C. Wright Mills will more likely get more out of it that other sociologists and the majority of the movie going public.  Additionally, since modern movie goer tastes[10] err on the side of action and explosions these days, this film is a quite sleeper and (hopeful) independent hit that reminds us of the true craft of filmmaking and the use of film as a sociological mirror to criticize our own society.




[3] Yet in a response to criticism Mills points out that “the power elite is not a homogeneous circle of a specified number men whose solidified will continuously prevails against all obstacles.” (Mills 2008: 148)
[6] Where you can literally miss the large chunks of the movie without missing plot details or understanding of the films progression. Additionally, this speaks to the trend of mindless escapism and nostalgia that is chiefly desired by the populace today. We all know where that can lead.
[7] Over the last 5 years, particularly since the end of Nolan’s Batman Trilogy, I have personally been experiencing the law of diminished margin utility when it comes to Superhero films. The more I consume, the less satisfied I am by the product. And, like a drug addict, who moves on to harder and harder drugs for the same high, it is the films that are unique, or outside of the mainstream (Think of your Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool) in order to get excited or even really like a Superhero film. It is my fear that I will eventually reach a maturation point where I will never be contented again
[8][8] Think of the Quote “The ends justify the means.”
[9] Particularly his work The Economy and Society
[10]  An indication of their culture ala Pierre Bourdieu

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Racism, Donald Trump and the Price of Nostalgia



INTRODUCTION

In an attempt to make sense out of the election 2016 results that saw the rise of Donald J. Trump into the position of President-Elect; the last few entries in this blog has been a critical analysis of his popularity (through what I have coined “reality politics”) and the immediate aftermath of his election with an analysis of a few of his cabinet nominees and appointments[1].  This article, the last in the Trump analysis trilogy, takes a look at the role of popular culture, particularly nostalgia, and its contribution to and as a barometer for a Trump win. 

GREAT AMERICA”

There is an interesting correlation between a Donald Trump presidential campaign and nostalgic popular culture. They both look to the past as answers to, and satisfaction of, the current social problems of today. The common denominator is the feelings that both Trump and nostalgic popular culture invoke and the simplistic beliefs and solutions that they can present. Nostalgic popular culture is designed to reaffirm our perception of the past as easier, simpler and therefore better. So too, Donald Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”, is a nostalgic throwback saying to his supporters that there was a time when the US was something to behold, to be proud of, and the promise of "a bid time return". The reasons why both Trump’s slogan and Nostalgic marketing are successful is both Cognitive and Social.

      Cognitive

Which is more impactful, bad memories[2] or good memories[3]? While there is competing research on this issue (see footnotes), in general, we want to look back on our past with “rose colored glasses”; meaning we want to be positively engaged with our past. One of the reasons we have this desire is to validate our self-concept. In fact, nostalgia which is defined as “a sentimental longing and wistful affection for the past”, contributes to producing a positive self-concept. In short, how we think about the past, especially the way that we look at our own past, shapes how we see ourselves in the present. According to Wildschut, Sedikides, Arndt, and Routledge (2006), we typically see ourselves as the protagonist of our own stories. Further, we often engage in nostalgia to create a positive affect or redeem negative life experiences[4] In fact, the authors state that nostalgia is often a tool to achieve and protect a positive self-concept. Therefore, it is not that difficult to convince an individual, or a group of people for that matter, to desire an affable past for their own gain.
          This affirmative perception of our own history is further compounded through hindsight.  The basic premise being twofold: since we have lived through the experiences of our past, they by the simple activity of being achieved (if the experience was positive) or overcome (if the experience was negative), makes them seem less cumbersome, threatening, and/or rewarding. The importance and power  of that experience diminishes in our mind because we were able to achieve/endure it.  Secondly, the human mind is unreliable (a fact that will become more important in the next section). The more time passes between experiences the less emotionally resonant those experiences become.  Positive accomplishments lose their luster and negative experiences “don’t seem that bad” as they once did.  For example: If an adult would think about their major troubles as a teenager, and would compare them to the troubles they face today, most would say that their troubles of their youth often pale in comparison to their current troubles.  Many of them may even use their rhetoric that they “long to go back to that time where life was simpler.” 
           For many people, this desire to “turn the clock back” is easily understood. Of course we want to return to a previous time period in our past because, on a micro level, all of our biographies were easier and simpler when we were children. This is because children in our culture (especially those of us who are upper class, white, heterosexual and/or male) have less responsibilities, with less complicated lives than adults.  So, part of nostalgia's power, and the effectiveness of the throwback message of Donald Trump is because it promises a less complicated, easy-going past that appeals to the “kid” in us; regardless of the social truth of its actual existence.

           Social
           
            A common claim many (conservative) people often make is to “return to a simpler time” A similar phrase was used during the 2010 Tea Party takeover of Congress (ala "take our country back.") and during the 2016 election (in the parlance of Donald Trump, “Make America Great Again") However, it is quite vague as to which time period these people want to return to. When pressed to give a specific year on which to return they can not provide one [5] .This lack of an answer has one of two implications. Firstly, they may not have a particular time period in mind because they only want to “feel” like their life is easier and simpler…like when they were children. Such a desire may account for the subtle forms of racism such as the backlash against progressive policies and political correctness in recent years (e.g. stating that we have become “ too sensitive”[6]). On that note, it is important to understand that in recent years, propelled by the election of our first black president, we have been able to combat the more  subtle forms of racism and sexism which became more apparent and visible after the civil rights movement. Now, with the election of Donald Trump, it is plausible that these vaguer forms of discrimination and micro-aggressions will, one again, become invisible. Compared to the blatant, overt forms of racism (we may soon be experiencing) subtle racism and sexism seem quaint and inconsequential e.g: No one is worried about equality of media representation if they are facing physical violence in their daily lives.
The second implication is far more nefarious, and has its origins in the election of Barrack Obama. According to anti-racism author Tim Wise, the election of Barrack Obama made whiteness visible to many white people for the first time. This caused many white people to feel uncomfortable at best and revulsion at worst[7] It was at this moment, according to Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla Silva (see link about the civil rights movement above), that white people knew that they needed to minimize their use of overt racism, and avoid being labeled a racist. The result was an increase in the ideology of colorblindness and the transformation of racist language through using “Race Talk”.  The other outcome of white people being aware that their once blatantly open (and unabashed) racism having negative consequences is that they witnessed their privilege. While the recognition and understanding of one’s privilege is generally a good thing, and can lead to white people taking steps to fight against white supremacy and ally themselves with activists, authors and academics of color; it can also be used for the opposite.
Those who understand their own privilege (race, gender, ability, sex, class etc), can also work hard to make it invisible. By having an understanding of white privilege, whether people are self-described racists (think Neo-Nazi, the Klan etc.), or a product of a racist system (a majority of whites and people of color growing up in the US), a person can actively try to avoid (through word or by deed) being labeled a racist; thereby consciously minimizing the public perception of our own white privilege; which inevitably reinforces and compounds the privileges that we (white people) have. Therefore, the reason why many people cannot (or will not) give a date on which they wish to return, is because they are consciously aware that any time period they choose is historically only going to benefit white people. This identifies the desire to go back to a specific time period as ultimately racist, a label most people want to avoid.

This is satirized in this clip from Louis CK:




            Additionally, the human ability to recall events is unreliable and can be subject to manipulation. Much of the manipulation can be done by nostalgic popular culture and advertising.  Due to our less than perfect memories, and the inundation of advertising and media we receive. Much of our perception of what the past looked like, felt like, and its corresponding history, is blurred.
This intentional blurring of the past was first acknowledged in the sub-field of Sociology known as Marriage and Family.  Sociologist Stephanie Coontz  states that our perception of the traditional family, and traditional family norms have been manipulated by the media we consume. The public perception of the 1950’s family is not the reality the families of the 1950’s experienced.[9] Instead, the reality we remember is one that was fabricated by television shows like  I Love Lucy, Leave it to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, Father Knows Best  and their subsequent advertisements. This same manipulation is playing out today with the cycle of Nostalgia.

THE CYCLE OF NOSTALGIC POPULAR CULTURE

  While the use of nostalgia to sell products is certainly nothing new, it seems as though the use of this marketing technique has, in recent years increased in speed and become more acute. Previously, it seems, that nostalgia marketing was present in creating a general feeling of a nondescript past. Such as a feeling of innocence, or of childhood, without any specific reproduction of a particular form of pop culture.  Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker talks about “The Forty-Year-Itch” describing a piece of pop culture's affinity for a certain time period; the way that films of one era can call back to, and have a similar flavor to those of the past.[10] Yet, ironically we have begun to see an increase in remakes and a re-imagining of the popular culture of the last 40 years[11]

Here is a brief list of some of the forthcoming or recent film and television remakes, or those heavily relying on Nostalgia:[12]

Power Rangers (2017)
Jurassic World (2015)
Star Wars Episode VII (2015) Rogue One ( 2016) Episode VII (2017) Episode IX (2019)
Ghost in the Shell (2017)
Pokemon  Go (2016)
Stranger Things (2016)
Jumanji (2017)
Creed (2015)
Indians Jones 5 (2019)
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Baywatch (2017)
Samurai Jack (2018)
Magnificent Seven (2016)
Vacation (2015)
Beauty and the Beast (2017)
Voltron: Legendary Defender (2016)
The Jungle Book (2016)
Fantastic Beasts (2016) and The Sequel (2018) 3 more are planned.
Rambo TV series (2018)
 Fuller House (2016)

In this list, one can see a clear difference from what Gopnik speaks to. Unlike the pop culture cycle of the past, which had certain time periods invoke the zeitgeist of another time period; now we’ve moved on to specific remakes, looking at a reproduction of something every 25-30 years. This process was noticeable starting in the early 2010’s mining the childhood of now 30-35 year olds. And in the last 5-6 years, the industry has moved to mining the childhood of 20-29 year olds. This tactic is often easily dismissed as being motivated chiefly by Capitalism and the Profit Motive[13]; that the studio is just looking for an easy “cash grab” (industry term J ).  While this approach has proven profitable, partly because the adults that the studios use nostalgic marketing on to will likely take their children; it also creates a yearning for a time that never existed, at the same time masking the socio-political realities of the specific historical context.  The problem comes when the (unsuccessful) attempt to separate the pop cultural product from that context in which it was created, leaves us both hollow and susceptible.

Escapism and Cherry-picking (of History)

Much of the appeal of Nostalgia, and nostalgic marketing in general is due to just how removed from our current social issues it takes us.  The nostalgic movies, TV shows and abundant advertising often act as a distraction, a form of escapism, where we can retreat from the world and our current social and personal problems. To just...forget.  This distraction inevitably leads to complacency.

This is reminiscent of a famous quote by Karl Marx (1844)[14]:

  "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". 

Yet, today it is the media and advertising that is our opiate, and it has signified and contributed to the apathy of Americans. The Average American consumes 15hrs of media per person per day[15] and with only 55.4% of people voting in the 2016 Presidential Election[16], the power of Escapism and its correlation with apathy is significant; significant effects like the Election of Donald Trump.

            If we add to this calculated apathy the constant attempt to cherry-pick our history by ignoring the social and cultural context in which our beloved nostalgia was produced. The result is a practice that obscures the cultural realities of Racism, Sexism, ableism etc. that were inherent at the time.  Thus through the affection for and embracing of pop cultural products of the past, we are leaving ourselves venerable to the social, cultural, political and historical context in which those products were produced.





CONCLUSION

Thus, a contributing factor to the rise Donald Trump is that many of us were so anesthetized by the false promises of pop cultural nostalgia that we did not vote. The more troubling supposition is that Donald Trump paralleled his campaign with nostalgic marketing so well that people believed that a vote for him, is a vote for nostalgia; specifically, White Nostalgia[18]: where whites don’t have to be politically correct[19], or fear being labeled a racist; while people of color (and their white supporters) will be physically[20], socially and economically suppressed, oppressed and annihilated.   



This is a window into the future:

  Trump supporter rant videos:








[5] Although author and activist Tim Wise discusses that he has gotten an answer from (usually) white folks; the year 1956
[6] This narrative often has a gendered component to it. People often spouting about a “pussification” of America decrying about a manufactured “boy crisis.”
[7] There is also a forthcoming book on this subject by Tim Wise called White Lies Matter
[10] The movies of the 70’s invoke the spirit of films from the 1930’s etc.
[12] Often referred to a “Pop Nostalgia”
[13] Karl Marx Das Capital