1. I am more and more convinced that satire just doesn't work -- at least not as a political tool. And believe me, as someone with a deep and abiding love of the ironic, satiric, and parodic, it pains me to say that. Am I being overly pessimistic? That people "don't get it" is only part of the problem. (But just as an aside, jeebus! Is it not shocking how many people seemingly lack the capacity to detect and decode satire?) The larger issue, to my mind, is that so many people willfully disregard the intended message. And there's nothing you can do about that; you toss your images or words out there to the masses and they do with then what they will. Wasn't this what Dave Chapelle eventually ran up against? At a certain point, you have to ask some hard questions about why people are laughing. The answer sometimes will make you uncomfortable.
Is it even worth bringing this up? Could this be any more predictable? Do you even need to click on over to Media Matters to confirm your suspicion that the majority of wingnuts who responded to this poll believe the cover image is "funny, because there's some truth in it?" The New Yorker's stated message and intention is irrelevant. It will resonate with a few folks (who were already on board with the intended message anyway) and those whose views are being (cleverly or ineffectively--decide for yourself) skewered with the image will, at best, come out with their minds unchanged and, at worst, appropriate the image for their own purposes. That said,
2. This is yet more evidence that I am just hopelessly out of touch with most mainstream thinking generally and a lot of liberal/progressive orthodoxy in particular. Because I can accept that the image "doesn't work" for a lot of people for a lot of reasons. And yes, obviously, it's a racist depiction...since that was, after all, exactly the point the artist was trying to make about the underlying ideology he was satirizing. But I just can't quite get to "By god, the New Yorker must be denounced!" For example, the folks over at Feministing present a fairly mild rebuke: they frame it as a case where "satire fails" (with, of course, the requisite New Yorker contact info so you can call or e-mail to give the editors a piece of your mind.) Fair enough, I guess. But they link to posts at, among other places, Racialicious and Michelle Obama Watch (go there via the Feministing post; I'm not really interested in inviting all the fired-up readers of those two blogs over here to hound us [read: me] when this shows up in their trackbacks. Yes, that's right -- I am a coward). The former argues that the cover art is an example of "hipster racism," which the author defines as "ideas, speech, and action meant to denigrate another’s person race or ethnicity under the guise of being urbane, witty (meaning 'ironic' nowadays), educated, liberal, and/or trendy." It's not just that the image draws from racist and sexist stereotypes to make its point, but rather that the artist -- and indeed, the magazine staff as a whole -- are sexist and racist. MOW similarly characterizes this as an example of liberals "making excuses to engage in racist depictions of Black people because they have a really good point to make." Really? I'm all about folks on the left confronting our racism, but I'm just having a hard time seeing the relevance of that critique as applied to this image. I must just be missing something, because I have so far resisted the urge to write a letter of complaint to TNY or cancel our subscription. I'm not trying to be flippant here. I want to understand this interpretation and take it seriously, but I really don't see it.
But what I have mostly taken away from this is that:
3. Continuing to allow the right control the public discourse is the real problem. To me this is a perfect case in point. The BHO as closet anti-American Muslim terrorist sympathizer and Michelle as Angry Black Woman rhetoric is a creation of the right. I have really reached the point where I believe that there is no effective way to intervene in this conversation. Addressing the (non) issue head on with well-reasoned counter-arguments does next to nothing. You're still stuck within the confines of "is he or is he not a Muslim/anti-American/terrorist?" First of all, is this really the conversation that Obama supporters most want to be having with the voting public? Even if he and his surrogates "win" any given argument, the best message you take away from that battle is "Barack Obama: He's NOT a terrorist." Wow, some victory. Could I get that on a bumper sticker? Obama - terrorist is still the idea that is structuring the discourse. Best case scenario you add a question mark (Obama - terrorist?). For the wingnuts, it's just even more reinforcement. Why would everyone be talking about whether or not he's a terrorist if there wasn't something to it???
And this magazine cover debacle suggests that a "humorous" intervention (what Tom Tomorrow
I've actually got no fucking idea what the answer is, but I feel like it has to have something to do with finding a way to reframe the discourse on our own terms. Because what we're doing right now ain't working. I have not completely thought this through, but I think this is why I had such a negative reaction to Obama's speech on patriotism. Why go there? People said he "had to" engage. What the fuck do I know, but I just don't agree. If he has to "respond," why can't it be with outlining his own value and beliefs. (Yes, yes, I know his people will say that WAS what he was doing in the speech. But he still let the right set the terms and -- surprise! -- somehow in the course of playing this game he managed to alienate a lot of supporters on the left by explaining how he is patriotic and they are not. Whose interests does that ultimately serve? It. Is. A. Trap.)
Anyway, this is just my very scattered initial contribution to this conversation. Sorry Dave, I know I didn't exactly answer the question you originally posed. I'll be curious to hear what the rest of you think...
5 comments:
It got people talking alright!
Here's my comment on LGM:
....................
Given that a huge segment of the American public seems to believe one, if not all, of these images of the Obamas, I can't see this as over-the-top satire.
I'm certain that the vast majority of Americans who may glance at the cover on a magazine rack somewhere will think that The New Yorker is endorsing all of these slurs and lending credence to them.
A phone call from my mother-in-law, who is very much on the fence, will come shortly asking me to explain to her why each and everyone one of these depictions is wrong (again).
.....................
I think I stand by that. I do share with you a frustration about the reaction to the cover. I don't find the "It's great, if 'people' don't get it, fuck 'em" argument persuasive. I am also not a fan of the general sentiment that the Left needs to not march in lock-step like those echo-chambering wingnuts. Our love of nuance and internal critique did not help Gore or Kerry, and the Left immolating itself is McCain's best/only hope at this point.
That said, I can't see the "liberal racism" argument either. Clearly, the artist was depicting the slurs against Obama, not tapping his/her own recessed fears to come up with this graphic.
I'm also not in the camp that seems to believe that if someone doesn't find this cover hilarious, then they must belong to the "humorless liberal" camp. Bullshit. Not only do I have actual experience working with the humorless liberal crowd, but I also happen to have some of the funniest friends in the blogosphere and so far no one is coming out in favor of the cover.
All that said, if the point of the cover was satirization of all the slurs against Obama, I have to say FAIL. It depicts the slurs. It does not go over the top. I really don't understand the people who argue that the cover is "funny." I think it can only be funny if you honestly believe that only a few thousand rubes would believe any of this. Instead, I think any one of the depictions on the cover could be make or break issues in this campaign. Anyone who thinks that the "Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist-sympathizer" meme isn't going to be a factor in this campaign right up until November isn't living in the same America I am. Anyone who thinks that Michelle Obama as angry black woman isn't going to be a factor needs to think again.
If the New Yorker has an interest in seeing Obama elected president (and maybe they don't), then this cover does them and us no favors.
How would one go about satirizing the two memes (Barack = Muslim terrorist and Michelle = angry black woman)?
I've read a lot of reactions, but I've not seen a suggestion as to what would have worked, besides the silly "make it a John McCain thought bubble" thing.
Any ideas?
Ash,
Great post!
Just to clarify, I was not saying that I think the TNY is crap, just that the "cartoon" failed...
I love Sy hersh and the other writers, but I think the cover was a mistake. Not for sales or interest, in marketing "there is no bad publicity", but in terms of politics. I think that it was not helpful to Obama.
I agree with Ash that the media narrative becomes so disconnected from the "original intent", that it becomes mind-numbing. But that is a result of the right's dominance over the media narrative. even Mcsame , who doesn't use the internets, is ruled by drudge.
I disagree with dave, that Gore or Kerry were done in because lefties wouldn't fall in line, or some flaw in their campaigns. I think the culprit is again the media, and what hillary dubbed the VRWC....
EZ,
I think I could make the case that enough Nadarites in Florida bought into the "Gore is a corporate shill" argument to cost him the election.
You may be right about Kerry. If forced, I'd probably say that Kerry doomed himself with his completely fucked "I'm the anti-war warrior" schtick he'd been running his whole life. The moment he "reported for duty" at the Dem convention he was done.
The fact that there's a firestorm is really depressing to me, for the reasons that Ashley's outlined. The main thing that really makes me want to scream is the number of people---both for and against Obama, and for and against the cover---who think the cover was intended as an attack on Obama. Most galling for me are the right-wingers who say, "Hey, the New Yorker gives Bush so much grief, and now they're giving Obama the same kind of grief, so what's the big deal" ... god, they irritate me just thinking about them.
But I also wonder what real electoral impact this kind of thing has. Do you think there are many fence-sitters who, as a result of the cover, will decide not to vote for Obama? My feeling is that it won't make much difference; but that's wild speculation. Unless there's a significant impact, is this even an answerable question?
Post a Comment