Donald Trump and the Rise of Reality Politics

INTRODUCTION

            Over the last year and a half we have had to bear witness to one of the most contentious elections in history.  The divisive political climate is painfully apparent in the public reaction many people have to the main two party candidates. It is not that these candidates are well liked, it is more so that those who are going to vote, hate the other candidate much more. So, many of the votes that each candidate are going to get are not from supporters, but from those against to their opposition.

 There are those that believe that Donald Trump is a racist hate spewing demagogue and others who see Hillary Clinton as a hawkish elitist prison-bound conspirator. And no Amount of “facts” will stand in the way of that belief. The understanding that objective facts, and the perception of the facts, are two different things is the basis of  Social Constructionism

  Politics, and especially winning an election, is based on how well a candidate understands that reality is a social construction. A politician who understands this social process (of knowledge production) well, can tap into the emotions of the populace, stoke their flames of fear and ride the tide of tyranny right into office.  Such a politician understands that with a lack of an agreement of what is considered true, belief can TRUMP facts. Yet, it seems that daily we are constantly surprised by the depths to which this election has sunk. 

The road to Nov 8th 2016 has been fraught with so scandals, conspiracies, xenophobia and sexual violence culminating in the threat of armed physical violence at the polls and a non peaceful transfer of power, that many people are asking "How did we get here.".  The sea of analysis that has flowed forth from that question one drop in this vast ocean, that has gotten little attention  is the influence of reality television and the way Donald Trump has run his campaign . 

 Donald Trump is "a real estate magnate with no experience in politics whose highly unconventional campaign bears a resemblance to the reality TV shows in which he has starred"

 POLITICS AND THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA 

The Power of the Media
        Since the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon, we have understood the power of the non news media to influence elections. This was the first time that a candidate for office had to look "positively presidential". In fact, this has changed the political landscape so much, that many of our previously elected leaders, would not be elected today.  The navigation of the multi-media landscape would have claimed even our most competent former leaders. To be sure, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt would be highly scrutinized for their look and demeanor. To put it frankly, today we wouldn't elect an man in a wheelchair.
      It is easy, using historical hindsight, to hyperbolically say that, before the media's importance in presidential elections, our elected leaders were selected more on the content of their platform, rather than who they were as a person. To do so, would not only be an example of revisionist history, but it would also ignore the role embedded, structural, institutional and covert inequality  had during those elections. Instead, the culture that we are in, cultivates the presidential candidates that we have, and it is that culture which has allowed these two candidates have risen in popularity and revulsion, which they have done against the backdrop of a relentless media landscape.

The Role of Social Media 

        Over the last two presidential elections the use of social media has become of greater and greater importance especially among younger voters. According to the American Press Institute, most millennials 18-35 gain most of their political news from online sources.  While most millennials have a daily interaction with Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Twitter, Pintrest, Tumblr and Reddit. It is the Younger millennials (under the age of 30) that have a more consistent media presence (daily usage) with diverse social media platforms.

       Additionally, the use of Facebook as a primary social media source tends to skew toward older millennials whereas Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and Reddit skew younger.

    Thirdly, and most interestingly to the subject of political campaigns, is the way that Millennials engage with their social media.  Younger millennials use Facebook only as a social tool between friends, choosing instead to use twitter to garner the trending information and political news. Older millennials on the other hand use Facebook for both of these reasons.[1]

      To this end, of capturing the youth vote and to increase overall presence in the media both of the Candidates for president have a strong media presence. Although Trump beats out Clinton at twitter (his 12 million followers vs her 9.34 million), the Clinton campaign has a strong youtube presence where Trump is almost nonexistent (outside of videos about him of course). [2] It should be noted that the number of followers one has does not equate to voter support.  Additionally, given the polemic and inflammatory nature of Donald Trump’s tweets[3], It is plausible that a fair amount of his followers may not politically support him, but may just want to the first ones to see what new incendiary thing he send out, as a form of entertainment.

This is a small sample of some of the sexist tweets Trump uses to gain followers

Politics: The Ultimate Reality TV Contest

 This reinvention of politics as entertainment has caused Donald Trump to become a presidential candidate.  Over the last 10 years the top television genre has been reality TV. The majority of people, before this election, have known only the Trump brand and the carefully crafted image of Donald Trump from his show The Apprentice (and its many spin-offs ) for the last 16 years.  It is this image of Trump that many of his followers have embraced so completely, that regardless of the failed business ventures, bankruptcy and questionable business practices  they still think he is a "great businessman" and continue to deify him .

A small, wiry man...eyes afire, called out to all within earshot [during a Trump Rally], “To be in the presence of such a man! To be in the presence of such a man.” There seemed in this man’s call, a note of reverence, even ecstasy (Hochschild 2016:224).

    Unfortunately, this is nothing new in politics, we have done this with other candidates as well, We've done this with Ronald Reagan, presenting the image of the tough as nails cowboy, Arnold Schwarzenegger embracing the image of The Terminator, and now Donald Trump. All of these are examples of the disconnect we have between  the image of a person and the person themselves (remember social constructionism) which has allowed a revolving door between Hollywood and Politics. However, it also cannot be overstated that the [motion] pictures to politics pipeline usually only happens to affluent white men.

THE PANDERING TO ANGRY WHITE MEN

According to the graph above, the typical Trump supporter is a older white man with little education. This is also the same group that has tends to support the 2nd amendment and have the most guns.  The popularity of Donald Trump can be explained by his ability to tap into the zeitgeist of blue collar white male fear, racism and xenophobia that has bubbled up to the surface after the election of Barrack Obama.  

       White privilege is invisible to most white people. They believe that their experience, opportunities and access to resources are in line with everyone else, regardless of the truth. This is what is known as the normalization of whiteness (or White Hegemony). Thus, when social movements, the passing of laws and the election of the first “black” president not only makes their whiteness visible, but begins to strip away the privilege they didn’t believe that they had; it creates a backlash that Donald Trump is capitalizing on; which makes him an opportunist. In fact, many poorer white people have a lot in common with poorer people of color, even if their racial privilege still divides them. 

As this great SNL clip emphasizes

Rape Culture in Politics

    The Above clip of Donald Trump clearly illustrates Donald Trump as the embodiment of the rape culture. This was also the inciting incident that has caused his campaign to implode. Yet, it was only AFTER these comments were in the public eye (through the media) that anyone cared. From the first speech declaring his candidacy, Donald Trump, has embodied and fueled racial hatred (see clip at the beginning of this section) and Donald Trump's long history with sexism has been well documented. The question is: Why now? The answer has everything to do with  the power of the media and white men.

       A lot of the aforementioned rape culture is tied to masculinity. It is a form of toxic masculinity that sees women as sexual objects and normalized sexual assault to the point that Trump, like many other men before and after him, feels comfortable with this form of hate speech.  However, the social context can not be overlooked here. Trump is in an isolated space that is populated with mostly men. It is this space, what Sociologist Michael Kimmel calls "Guyland", that contributes to the perpetuation of the rape culture and the [street] harassment of women. Kimmel shows that this is not just a isolated problem with one political candidate. Trump is just the most recent public expression of a poisonous patriarchal practices that most men have to navigate.

     Men having to navigate such a "bro culture", is part of the reason there was a lack of outrage against Trump. His racist comments and foreign policy, along with his sexist comments against many women before this, did not have the same political fall out because it didn't prompt white men to get offended. Simply put: the outrage and backlash Trump experienced is because his behavior went from the "protected social space" of Guyland to the Public. Once the comments were in the public, he offended white women; and since all white women are in an intimate relationship with a white man, whether that be a father, brother, partner etc., Trumps comments have aggravated the paternalistic protectionism of white women by white men.

    Thus, it is not necessarily that our culture now, all of sudden, see women as people. It is more so that Trump was attacking what a lot of conservative white men believe is their property. This is illustrated by the typical White Male response to Trumps comments citing themselves as  a husband, father, brother etc. By doing this they are also illuminating the cultural perception that IN ORDER FOR A WOMAN TO BE CONSIDERED A PERSON, SHE HAS TO INDIVIDUALLY BE RELATED TO EVERY WHITE MAN!

As Samantha Bee explains 

CONCLUSION

      The current candidates both represent ideologies that clearly embody America. From our unwillingness to own up to our history of genocide, racism, and sexism, while still being racist and sexist through the emulsification of hate into a new subtler aberration; to our sense of optimism, progress, support and unity that allows for opportunities and multiculturalism, these candidates are the manufactured mirror of our culture, and regardless of who wins, this cultural duality of the United States is now clearly visible to all.

     The issue now is what do we do with this critical lens we have had over our country in the last year and a half? What will we do on Nov 9th? Will we remember this election forever, or like a lot of things, will our memory get fuzzy with age, time and distance? Could we look back on this time and say "It wasn't that bad?" like we do, so many other historical events? Perhaps.  It is far more likely that happens than that which we need. We need to remember, we need to understand and embrace these horrors; to hold them tight until it is burned in our memories. Then we can say never again... then we can have progress.

  

     

[1] http://www.mediainsight.org/PDFs/Millennials/Millennials%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

[2] http://venturebeat.com/2016/09/26/trumps-climate-change-conspiracy-was-the-most-retweeted-tweet-during-the-first-debate/

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=1

   

The Furious Age of Feminism: The Mad Max and Avengers' Gender Controversy

INTRODUCTION

              The 2015 summer movie season has started off with a bang, just not in the way that many people expected.  The two biggest (and certainly the loudest) films so far have been Avengers: Age of Ultron and Mad Max: Fury Road. While the former's success may be as unsurprising as water being wet, it is the latter, often thought of a niche sci-fi franchise, that has been  garnering a lot of the buzz. Therefore, after seeing both films, and witnessing the gender fueled outrage and discourse surrounding them; rather than just write a sociological review for each film (some great ones you can find here and here) I thought I would couple my reviews with an analysis of social uproar and "civic unrest" that these films have caused... from a socially conscious, disabled straight white (usually) cis gendered feminist (allied) male perspective.

"Spoilers." 


"BLOWING UP" 'THE AVENGERS'


            On May 1st (in the States) Avengers: Age of Ultron was released to huge box office numbers. Though not outperforming its predecessor both critically, or commercially; it is still a world wide hit. Yet, the film seems to lack the overall joy, and mass societal embrace that the first film received.  Part of this due to the the nature of sequel [hulk]buster filmmaking.
            In an early interview, after the first Avengers film was released, Director Joss Whedon was asked How he would  "top" Marvel's The Avengers. he simply said "I can't".  He went on to say that the only way that you move forward with such an immense franchise, is to make a smaller, more intimate film, that focuses on character and the relationships within the team.  When I heard that, I got really excited.  Being a Joss Whedon fan since Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I was confident that he could make a meaningful, emotionally resonant film while still having thrilling moments of action and spectacle.  Unfortunately, due to producer meddling, what we got was anything but perfect. Age of Ultron is a bloated, often incoherent mess, that cripples under its own weight of advertisements for future films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).
             Avengers: Age of Ultron has a multiple viewing requirement; not for the sheer pleasure of the experience, but just to understand all of the plot threads, character motivations and (at times) dialogue that is packed into it. Upon my first viewing of the film, I became nauseous just trying to follow the initial action sequence that begins at the height of the Crescendo of the last film (tracking shot of all the Avengers fighting together). At that moment, and confirmed by the rest of the film, the dream of a "smaller" film that Whedon had envisioned (and I had hoped for) was murdered in front of me with every action set piece that was constantly "turned up to 11". I left the film not questioning whether or not it was a superior film to the original, but on whether or not I even enjoyed it.

This is basically how I felt throughout the film:

            I liked the film better on viewing it a second time.  During the repeat viewing, I latched on to the quieter moments in the film; the party scene was wonderful, as was everything at Hawkeye's Farmhouse.  These are the sequences that give the bare bones of the smaller film I was looking for and what (I believe) Whedon wanted to initially create.    

 THE BLACK WIDOW PROBLEM?

            One of the major issues with The Avengers franchise, and superhero teams in general, is the overall lack of representation, visibility and agency for its female characters.  Overall, there are less female characters than male characters in an ensemble cast, which often requires all female viewers to (impossibly) identify with that (usually) one character. Conversely, again that (usually) one character is (impossibly) tasked to be everything for all women. In addition, female characters usually have less screen time, secondary plot lines (That is if they have a character arc at all, and are more than a walking trope.) and are often "shipped" or "fridged" (more on that later).       Black Widow seems to be the epitome of a lot of these tropes for the MCU.  Although she has fared better in the hands of more competent and less sexist director (i.e. Joss Whedon), the lack of Black Widow merchandise (comparative to her male counterparts) and a lack of a Black Widow feature film maintains her irrelevance to shareholders and the "Powers that Be" at Disney/Marvel.

 Fandom has become so impatient for a Black Widow Solo film that one fan produce this small piece of Awesomeness:

             These problems get exacerbated when during the marketing of Avengers: Age of Ultron, cast members Jeremy Renner and Chris Evans slut shame the character of Black Widow in a recent interview  

Then, almost immediately,they recanted their statements.  It is this behavior that illustrates the normalization of the devaluing of women in our society and, to put a finer point on it, a perfect example of The Rape Culture. 

            The reaction of Renner and Evans is a common one in our culture when Patriarchal norms are being challenged. Often, the women who challenge the sexist status quo are often vilified and humiliated because (some) men are socialized to believe that female agency, autonomy, and civil liberties come at the cost of masculinity.  In short, they believe that female agency emasculates men. Because of this notion, the vilification of women is done through sexualization (as the above comments demonstrate) and the humiliation is done though rape.  Rape is then used as a way to both discipline women, and to regain any perceived "lost" masculinity.  This is ever more heightened when the (aforementioned) total lack of diversity of female characters ( as it is in Marvel films) results in the same character (Black Widow) being a champion of a certain brand of feminism, as well as a firebrand and a scapegoat. Therefore, regardless of being labeled a "feminist icon", Black Widow is also the victim of harassment and a target of hatred not only by the patriarchal rape culture, but by any social justice group who believes that her portrayal betrays the their ideology in which she has been lauded as a paragon.  

THE CONTROVERSY 

          In addition to the general problem of too few female characters, and the distastefulness of slut shaming, the current embroiled controversy that the character of Black Widow is in the middle of stems from a "key" scene in Avengers: Age of Ultron.  In that scene, Bruce (Hulk) and Natasha (Black Widow) discuss their mutual attraction and their future together. Bruce chides himself and Natasha for their feelings and "sees no future" for them because he can't have children. In response, Natasha tells Bruce about her "graduation ceremony" from The Black Widow Program, in which successful graduates are sterilized.  It is at that moment that Natasha labels herself a monster. To many, this labeling was interpreted to mean that Natasha felt that she was a monster because she could not conceive.  Therefore, by extension, the message is that ANY woman who can not biologically conceive should consider themselves a monster. This message, if true, is horrific and it needs to be outed as ludicrous and disgusting. While much of the internet has done that (see some of the links above) there was also the collateral damage of kicking Joss Whedon off twitter  (regardless of the PR). From my Sociological perspective, I can see both sides and believe there is a double standard at play here.
             First, I completely understand why some people (especially women who can't biologically conceive) could interpret the scene in the manner stated above. This would be especially hurtful if any of those people (who could conceive or not) had held up Joss as a feminist icon, or at the very least, a strong allied advocate.  To that point, there has been some chatter around the internet chastising these individuals by making the point that they (the now Whedon disillusioned) did not attack well known, and openly sexist directors, like Michael Bay; getting him to quit social media like they did Whedon.  The answer is simple: We expect more from our heroes than we do our villains. We expect Michael Bay to produce an incomprehensible, overblown, and bloated piece of sexist  racist homophobic garbage; because that is the personality that his films have shown us.  With Buffy, Angel, Firefly and to some extent Marvel's The Avengers, Joss Whedon has proven to be a great feminist ally in the past. He has this great quote a few years ago (paraphrasing):

" Everyone asks me: 'Why do you always write strong female characters.' and I say 'Because you keep asking me that question'."

Therefore, it is understandable for those who have placed Joss Whedon in their Reference Group/role model for strong male ally, that the realization of his human fallibility, that he is not the "perfect" ally, may lead to some cognitive dissonance that results in Joss being rejected by fans. This is a valid interpretation and Joss Whedon should apologize if ever met with such criticism.
           Secondly, as a point of contention, and (again) as a straight white cis gendered man. I interpreted the scene differently.  Given the context surrounding it. I thought the monster line did not expressively say (nor imply) that Natasha was a monster because she couldn't biologically have kids, but because that choice was taken from her in a monstrous act, in order to make her a less compassionate assassin. ( Illogical I know). In other words, Natasha's monstrosity lies not in her ability or inability to have children, but in being an Assassin and murderer.  A past that was alluded to in the first Avengers film ("red in my ledger").

Skaar: Son of Hulk

            Finally, it is a bit of a hypocritical gendered double standard that many have called out Joss Whedon for vaguely implying that Black Widow's "Monster" line has anything to do with sterilization, when he has Bruce Banner plainly say "There is no future with me because I can't [biologically] have children". ( Fans of the comics know that that's not true). Bruce's clear statement of infertility (something that was again implied in the first Avengers film) implies that it results in him being a monster, or it's a product of him being a monster. NO ONE IS UP IN ARMS ABOUT THAT!  Because, everyone assumes that he is a monster BECAUSE of the Hulk NOT BECAUSE HE CAN'T HAVE KIDS! Why? Because men aren't socialized to want to have children, the way women are expected to. We see men's identity existing outside of being a husband and a father while we struggle with that separation for women; even in 2015.  If we are going to blame Joss Whedon for the portrayal of Natasha Romanov, we also need to blame him for the portrayal of Bruce Banner.  They are both monsters, not because they can, or can not have children, but because of the lives they've ruined, and the people they've hurt (and killed). 

Side Note: Was Quicksilver fridged (much in the same way many female characters are in comics) just to advance the plot and development of Scarlet Witch? If this was intentional, Bravo Whedon for playing against Tropes. If not, it is just a happy accident!

A 'MAD' 'FURY' FOR THE SENSES 

       Mad Max: Fury Road can only be described as beautiful insanity.  George Miller returns to his seminal Dystopian epic series (that took over 15 years to produce)as he also returns to form with this adrenaline fueled chase film that is short on dialogue, but big on spectacle.  Here, Miller schools everyone (even Christopher Nolan) in his ability to not only weave in CGI amidst a majority of practical effects but also by giving us a story that, while seemingly simple, is rich with character development and  progressive attitudes.      
        In this go round, Max is played by Tom Hardy. Hardy is not a stranger to terse characters, but as Max, he is laconic. Yet, even then, his Max emotes more with a simple (half) thumbs up than Mel Gibson did in any of the previous films (which are not required viewing).  The real star however is Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa who is attempting to escape a tyrannical warlord with his "wives" hoping to find safe passage to "the greenplace". Max is the drifter that falls in the middle of the situation and decides to help. What follows, is an orgiastic feast of colors and sounds that are so visceral; the smell of grease, exhaust and sand seemed to hang in air that you would swear they brought back smell-o-vision.  .  Hell, there is a guitarist who plays a guitar that doubles as a flamethrower while riding on a monster truck! No one expected Miller's vision, but we are all grateful.   I am impressed with the technical brilliance of the film. However, it was not what got me excited about the film to begin with. That, I attribute to the the overall positive feminist response.

MY TYPE OF INTERSECTION 

       Mad Max: Fury Road first came on my Sociological radar when I saw in the promotional material that the character of Furiosa was using a piece of assisted technology (a prosthetic/robotic arm) I was really excited to see how that was going to be portrayed in the film. In short,  I wasn't disappointed. Not only did I get a scene where Furiosa adeptly fights Max without the use of her prosthesis

 but I also became obsessed with the modified grip she uses to be able to shoot her rifle with her robotic arm.

While not expressly stated in the film, I like to think that this modification allowed her to be the only one who could use that rifle with any kind of accuracy. Please look to this great article for a more nuanced and in-depth discussion of disability in the Mad Max series.

      My Sociological interest deepened when I heard that Men's rights activists had called for a boycott of  the film, calling it Feminist Propaganda.

Before I move on, we must remember:

   These morons were worried that boys were being duped; that they paid for an action film (which in their minds was code for a masculine testosterone driven hyper reality that regulate women to eye candy and subjugation) where Max is the hero. Some have jeered " It's called Mad MAX for a reason!" Bare in mind that this the same non-logic that justifies homophobia with the mantra: "It's Adam and EVE  not Adam and STEVE!" They believe, as I mention in my discussion of The Rape Culture above, that boys will be emasculated if they watch one film where women are the focus.   What I would also like to point out to these idiots is that Max, as a character, hasn't been the star of the story since the original film. He, like a lot of main characters in Westerns, drifts in and out of towns and peoples lives, helping when and where he can. He is not the hero, he helps the hero. And in this film the hero is Furiosa. Plain and simple.
         Yet, in a way, we must thank these misguided and infuriating dirt bags. Because without their misplaced outrage, the film it would not have received its feminist support allowing more women to embrace the film (as all people should).  Due to this outpouring of support, (Hysterically the opposite of what was intended) Mad Max: Fury Road  is both a critical and commercial success.

THE DEBATE 

   Many prominent feminist and scholars have come out in support of Fury Road. Citing the female character development and overall lack of misogyny in the way women are being portrayed in the film. Each character is given a job to do and no one is damsel-ed or fridged, They also cite the way in which female strength is not only shown through typically masculine violent behavior, as with Furiosa and the Elderly bikers (characters that could be described as male characters in a female body), but also through sacrifice (Splendid using her pregnant body as a shield) and manipulation (Using the sexualization of women to bait a trap). A key scene that defines Mad Max :Fury Road as a feminist film for its supporters is when Max, recognizing Furiosa's skills with a rifle, hands the gun over to her at a crucial moment.

There is a gif for that:

This has even lead to a wonderful tumbler called Feminist Mad Max

   While this support is resounding and loud.  There are some in the feminist community that still see problems with the film. Instead of escaping patriarchy, they see its promotion.  They believe that regardless of the intention, the film reproduces patriarchy (through the way Imorten Joe treats women) and maintains the male gaze.

An Example:

      My interpretation is a bit of both. I do believe that Mad Max Fury Road is an amazing progressive film. The character of Furiosa stands on the shoulders of other great Sci-Fi characters like Elen Ripley and Sarah Connor but is even better because her motivation is not maternal. The film is also progressive because George Miller gives us more than one depiction of femininity that is valid and a atypical form of Masculinity that respects women.

This is a key Scene that shows Max as a Feminist ally. He says to Furiosa "Here is my idea, but it's your choice, You are the Leader."

               However,  I am also inclined to heavily criticize our culture that interprets any depiction of women outside of the usual sexist tropes as so novel, that it is chide as feminist. Feminism is not a dirty word, it is just trying to get our culture to see women as the complex humans they are, and push for diverse representation that has been monopolized by men in popular culture. It is depressing that we are still living in a society that views the notion that women are people as something radical.     

I leave you with this bit of Awesomeness: