How are dogs positioned as signifiers in the construction of race and racial difference?
Dogs are used as political entities which help us understand people. In the film Inja, dogs are symbolic as they trace the socio-political and historical dimensions of racial identity formation in South Africa, ‘they can be considered as an example of a culturally contextualized everyday practice.’ (Kuumba et. al. 1998: 227). Dogs are used as ‘indicators or markers of racialised identities developed and deployed to reinforce the identity boundaries of cultural hegemony.’ (Kuumba et. al. 1998: 230). This essay will analyse how dogs have been used as signifiers in the construction of race and racial difference by analysing the way black and white South Africans treat their dogs and the perceptions they have about each other with regards to their treatment of dogs as this highlights the racial differences between them.
‘The trouble around difference is really about privilege and power; the existence of privilege and the loop-sided distribution of power that keeps it going.’ (Johnson. 1997: 15). When looking at the history of colonialism and apartheid, Credo Mutwa states that animals were once part of their family, the chickens, the cows and the dogs. A dog was his closest friend, dogs were part of the hunting activity, they were also used as early warning systems against enemies and each dog even had their own song to which they were praised. In some circumstances, dogs were even seen as warriors. Traditionally, it was even believed that when dogs in the black community died, their spirits also joined ancestors as the people’s spirits did.
However, when dog licensing was introduced by the apartheid government, only Africans were forced to tie their dogs, they were forced to give them away. From this point, Africans did not have the privilege of having their dogs as white people did. The white man had the authority to take over black man’s humanity and possessions through the apartheid system. Steve Biko explains this in stating that:
“The white man’s quest for power has led him to destroy with utter ruthlessness whatever has stood in his way. In an effort to divide the black world in terms of aspirations, the powers that be have evolved a philosophy that stratifies the black world and gives preferential treatment to certain groups.” (Biko.1965: 66).
Dog licences enforced by the law were a way in which black people were alienated from their “four footed companions” – it was a sure way of likening something that was a part of black society as engrained in their daily livelihoods but was being given to King George. In the same way, black people were separated from other races in society and placed in Bantustans. In the same way that “land is the basis of freedom, justice, and equality” (Malcom. X), so can this be likened to the implementation of dog licences that separated the black man from his fellow of creation. The poverty that followed forced them to seek employment from the white man and thus allowed him to own his humanity through law and racial discrimination. It was a licence for separation and oppression. In addition to this, breeds such as German Shepherds and Alsatians were trained to attack black people. Dogs such as these were used to react to African accents and words such as ‘voetsek’ would translate to ‘attack me’. Dogs were therefore catalyzed by historically structured conditions and grounded in oppositional cultures. The role of dogs is seen as a boundary demarcation and identity signifier of race.
According to Halualani (1998), culture is intimately linked to power. Culture is also dialectical in a sense, it is accessible to the forces that facilitate both oppression and liberation, and it is a coherent set of values, beliefs and practices which mitigates the effects of oppression and reaffirms that which is distinct from the majority cultures. Racialised ideologies have resulted in black people been accused of being unable to take care of dogs by white people, this is seen by statements such as: black people do not know how to treat their dogs, they are not treated as part of the family, they do not have the resources and time to pamper their dogs. ‘Inja’ means devourer or eater and protects them against enemies; dogs are culturally seen by black people as swift hunters used to hunt animals. While on the other hand, white people are said to have an emotional connection with their dogs, which they keep as pets and not hunters.
In addition to this, dogs are for companionship, protection and social support. Their lives revolve around dogs; they sleep in their houses even on their couches. Dogs are used as physical territorial markers and guardians of culture, class and difference. They are literally used to protect white privilege. They physical mark territory by barking at black domestic workers, ‘this act which induces fear reminds them of where they are and how they should act in this area.’ (Swart. 2004: 14). Moreover within the dog community, there was a question that arose in the film as to whether the dogs themselves were taught racial profiling. What came about is that dogs were cultured in the way in which their environment allowed. In the same way “race is constituted and driven by a discourse of taste, which locates identity within the commodity culture nurtured through global popular culture”. (Dolby: 2001: 63). The differences in white people’s treatment of dogs to black people’s treatment of dog’s shows this difference in “taste” that enhances a racial divide, even in post apartheid South Africa.
These perceptions highlight the inferiority-superiority complex that exists between black and white people in contemporary South Africa. In Inja, it is said that ‘white people will set their dogs on you just to keep you out of their area, black people are treated worse than their dogs and the treatment of dogs in a better manner than black people shows the political construction of racial differences in a particular historic moment as part of a strategic contestation of white dominance and the cultural power of whiteness-class and racial dynamics. The emptiness of the native’s past and black –white dependency were all deliberate creations of the colonialist. The cultural background of black people was summed up in the word “barbaric”. Black culture has been an arrested mage by the powers. Dogs were therefore used to protect culture and white dominance. (Johnson. 1997: 37). The treatment of dogs in black communities could be likened to the response of black people to education during apartheid: “...the reasons put forward by these people (blacks) carry with them the realisation of their inherent dignity and worth…they see education as the quickest way of destroying the substance of African culture”. (Biko: 1965: 76). Treating dogs the way white people do would be destroying the African Culture that sees dogs as survivors and that which protects the black and his home from danger.
‘Symbols are used to maintain power by demeaning the other.’ (Cornyetz: 1994:129). In the Japanese culture; women maintain power over Japanese men by flaunting their black lovers in front of them. In the same way dogs are used to demean and control black people. Dogs are used to reaffirm the privileged white people. The dog accepts them but not the black person; this is seen in a particular scene when a white lady states that she has had her dog for seven years and her domestic worker for five years and yet the dog still barks at her, it refuse to accept her.
The dog is subservient to me and the black person is subservient to the dog; ‘creating a new hierarchy of power which maintains white superiority at the top.’ (Cornyetz.1994: 131). White people state that black people do not really love their pets. This stereotype is an attempt to make black people change this stereotype by ‘acting more like white people thus creating a hybrid black European that is above the savage native.’ (Swart. 2004: 21). The use of dogs by white people to signify their class and wealth is their attempt to further remove themselves from ‘local culture and be more European/Western.’ (Salo. et al. 2008: 52-3). It is perceived that black people will contaminate their culture and must therefore be kept at bay. ‘They are dirty but their existence gives the other person a sense of superiority.’ (Cornyetz.1994: 127-8). There is perfection in white communities and black people are believed as not being able to relate to dogs as they have different attitudes and perceptions regarding dogs. There is a feeling that black people do not respond much to dogs than whites, as dogs are not part of their family structure.
The concept of race is closely linked to class in South Africa. The apartheid era left many ‘blacks historically, politically and economically disinherited and a disposed group.’ (Biko. 1965: 74). ‘The white man’s quest has led him to destroy with utter ruthlessness whatever has stood in is way, give preferential treatment to certain groups....laws showed how the white men are on top, white supremacy.’ (Biko. 1965: 67). In the townships, there is a lot of poverty; people can barely afford to feed themselves, let alone their dogs. This limits the ways in which black poor people can afford to ‘treat’ their dogs, as opposed to white people that spend an average R200-300 just for top notch dog food. The access to resources that allow the two races to pamper their dogs highlights the huge inequality gaps that still exist in South Africa. Less than 1% of agricultural land has been delivered to black people since democracy; 87% of the land in South Africa is owned by whites and 13% by blacks, in addition to this, almost 10% of the population owns 80% of the resources such as capital, shares etc. Black people therefore form the majority of the poor people in South Africa. The inability to pamper dogs is not pure failure to understand and care for them. Black people in the film are seen as been unable to feed their dogs as they share their food with them. Because of the tradition or culture forced into South Africa ‘the poor shall always be black people as poverty has been related to blackness.’ (Biko. 1965: 68). Being white is a natural passport to the exclusive pool of white privileges from which they do not hesitate to extract whatever suits them; they are born into privilege and are nourished by and nurtured in the system of ruthless exploitation and black energy. In addition to this, the perceptions are biased, there are black people who pamper their dogs and care for them equally as white people. Anita Brown in Inja, loves dogs because of the companionship; She explains her love for dogs as being influenced by white people as she has never had black friends,
In conclusion, dogs become sites of racism. The act and thus responsibility of racism is shifted from the owner to the animal. Explanations such as; dogs are vicious by nature towards strangers or if you are nervous around an animal it will be nervous around you because they can sense fear make the attack purely the dog’s fault. Moreover, the relations black and white people have with their dogs and the perceptions they each have about each other which have been highlighted in this essay show that dogs are used as ‘indicators or markers of racialised identities developed and deployed to reinforce the identity boundaries of cultural hegemony.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
• Biko : I write what I like (1965) Published by Grove Weidefeld. Division of Grove Press Incorporated.
• Cornyetz, N. (1994). Hip hop and racial desire in contemporary Japan. Social Text. 41, Winter. 113-139.
• Dolby, N.E (2001), Constructing Race: Youth, Identity & Popular Culture in South Africa. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 63-
• Halualani, R. T. (1998). Seeing through the screen: A struggle of culture. In J. N. Martin & T. K. Nakayama, et al. (Eds.). Readings in Cultural Contexts. Mountain View. CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. 264-275
• Johnson, A. G. (2001). Privilege, Power, and Difference. Selected Chapters. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
• Kuumba, M. Bahati and Femi Ajanaku. (1998). Dreadlocks: The Hair Aesthetics of Cultural Resistance and Collective Identity Formation. Mobilization 3(2): 227-243
• Magwaza, Thenjiwe. (2001). Private Transgressions: The Visual Voice of
Zulu Women. Agenda (49):25-32.
• Malcom X: Malcom X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements. Editor G: Breitman.
• Salo, E & Davids, B. (2008) Glamour, Glitz and Girls: The meaning of femininity in high School Matric Ball culture in urban South Africa. In: M. Steyn & M. van Zyl . The Prize and the Price. HSRC press Cape Town.
• Swart, S. (2004). “Race” horses: Horses and social dynamics in post-apartheid South Africa. . In Distiller, N. and Steyn, M. E. Under construction: “Race” and identity in South Africa today. Sandton: Heinemann. Pp. 13-24.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Wa'n Wina
Why is “because it’s their culture” not a sufficient explanation for the reasons why HIV/AIDS has spread in Phiri?
The term “their culture” refers to the African culture created during the age of exploration and colonialism. In relation to HIV/AIDS, the behaviours that lead to the prevalence of the disease amongst African people are symptomatic of their culture. The behaviours include sexual promiscuity and a refusal to use condoms, lack of education and a good understanding of the disease because they are not as smart as their European counterparts . However, culture alone does not form the basis of the explanation for the reasons why HIV/AIDS has spread in Phiri. The acknowledgement of power dynamics highlights the impact of diminished socio-economic conditions in Africa, as shown by the poor living conditions of the people in Phiri. Patton (1990) reveals how the medical research sector itself is ridden with the politics of power where more money is spent in the First World, than in the Third World. The power dynamic thus extends to the knowledgeable while compromising the information to the poorer sectors of the society. This demonstrates how the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, and Phiri especially, is not essentially linked to culture, but finds its basis in socio-economic factors.
Former South African President Thabo Mbeki displayed what is commonly considered as African culture through his denialism of the seriousness of the disease, he also made a distinction between AIDS found in Africa to that found in Europe and North America. His comments played in to the stereotype of Africans as less intelligent and lazy, clinging to the frivolous nature of their outdated and traditional cultures that reject the truth of science . Many of these characteristics that shape external views of African culture exist throughout the rest of the World. Many people in the North America still engage in sexual intercourse without condoms , denialism also exists in Brazil where people feel that if they do not engage in the practices that are associated with HIV/AIDS they face less of a risk contracting it . The idea that different types of the disease exist originated in Northern America where they felt that the disease only existed amongst homosexual men who practiced anal intercourse and drug addicts who used dirty needles while heterosexual AIDS existed in Africa. Heterosexual men in North America who had contracted the disease did so through anal intercourse with prostitutes . It is believed that African men are highly promiscuous and never live up to their responsibilities but this is something that occurs with men globally. Men are held to a different standard than women and have more freedom to move around sexually . Thus, these stereotypically African cultural characteristics are actually universal traits and therefore the prevalence of the virus in Africa cannot be explained through the colonialist ideas of African culture.
To explain the reasons for the prevalence in South Africa more specifically one needs to look at structural reasons that stem from the apartheid system, which put in place a system of oppression, based upon race. Oppression led to poverty and once entrapped in that system it is difficult to move out of it . In the film, we see that quite a number of men and women are unemployed but it is the women who are affected the most. Many teenage girls have babies and are dependent on their parents for financial support. The boyfriends of these girls convince them to have unprotected sex by saying things like “girls who use condoms are promiscuous”. Other girls engage in unprotected sex because they trust their boyfriends but once they fall pregnant, it is seen that the men responsible leave them. Because of the desperate situation regarding poverty and unemployment in the community, these girls will do whatever it takes to keep their boyfriends, as they will be their most likely source of financial support. As Phumla (in the film) said, she has a baby; she and her mother do not work; only her father does. They thus become reliant upon men, embedding the idea that women need men to survive. This power dynamic oppresses woman and empowers men. Men are thus given leeway to continue with irresponsible behaviour.
The poverty in the community extends to education as well. In the film, we see Phumla teaching the class because the teacher did not show up to work that day. The level of education offered to these children is not of a high standard and it seems as though sexual education is a problem area . One of the woman interviewed stated that she learnt about sex when her boyfriend opened her thighs and penetrated her for the first time. The lack of education is a vital cause in the spread of the disease in this community ., and also attributes to the large possibility of females in the community being abused by “more knowledgeable” men. Young girls can be easily influenced into doing things that, with the basic sexual education, they might otherwise not do. Throughout the film, we see that the topic of sex is a taboo issue unless it is spoken about in a humorous manner. The failure to deal vocally with the issue of HIV/AIDS will only lead to further infections.
“Because it is their culture” is therefore not a sufficient explanation for the reasons why HIV/AIDS has spread in Phiri. The term “culture” needs to be critically examined before determining it as the cause for the increased spread of HIV/AIDS. It is a problematic term that has inherent power dynamics as it has the ability to other difference, instead of acknowledging the values within diversity. It also ignores the power dynamics caused by history, systems of power in politics and the unequal distribution of resources within societies. The underlying cause of the spread of HIV/AIDS in Phiri is thus not solely linked to the “culture” of the people, that is, the culture denoted as “African” through colonial definition. Structural implications are the result. Economic issues can be seen as the root of many of the causes of the prevalence of the disease in South Africa rather than the supposed “African culture” .
How would you explain the dynamics portrayed in the film without resorting to stigmatising resources?
The behaviour of individuals in Wa’n Wina may be explained through using the lenses of gender, moral values, class and peer pressure. The film is a raw image of the various struggles of humanity with further emphasis on culture, gender, sexuality and HIV/ AIDS. All of these differences are interrelated and are the basis for stigmatizing discourse. However, this film is both informative and constructive. It seeks to define the reason behind difference as it exists in this context.
To begin, class determines interaction among the youth. Dumisani’s unemployed friends fail to establish any kind of relationships with girls that are in any way a higher class than them, for example, they all state that they do not approach girls that enter beauty contests as they cannot “afford” them. They are afraid to be judged by the way they dress; they cannot take these types of girls to the movies and give them the ‘nice’ things they expect. The result is a preference for girls that are ‘easy’ to entertain, for example they prefer a class of girls that smoke, drink and “like things”. When regarding the classes within Phiri it is also important to look at the overall spectrum whereby all the people living in this area should be recognised as those living in the lower classes of South African society. The fundamental difference between blacks and whites in South Africa has maintained a set of complex constructions of the lower class blacks in Phiri. This is linked to the sexuality constructions that identify HIV/AIDS as a disease of sexuality. A father in the film says that “when growing up he never had control of his life, it’s a white men’s country, not our country, and we left our way of life and came to this place”.
A further dynamic portrayed in the film is one of morality. Moral values influence the attitude towards sex, and ultimately the spread of the disease. In the local school, moral values become a means to educate school children on what is right and wrong. An example can be noted from the school assembly: the headmistress insists that although some school children may consider prostitution as a means of earning money, it is an act of immorality as God says sex before marriage is wrong. The behaviour of the youth portrayed in the film can also be attributed to peer-pressure. One of the reasons why a lot of the youth become sexually active while early is that they are pressured by their boyfriends; one male in the film says that girls “should show them that they love them, its normal”, and this love is equated to sex. In addition to this, in schools and around the community, the youth claim that you cannot be 19 and still be a virgin; the only virgins are in the rural areas. This creates a feeling of exclusion if one has not yet had sex. This perception results in individuals engaging in sex to fit in with this ‘norm’.
The general dynamic between men and women as portrayed in the film is like a game. “sometimes it feels like a dream and you wake up in the morning it will all be over. Then sometimes it feels like a game. girls playing boys, boys playing girls.” The people are already living through hardship and as a result there seems to be negative energy surrounding both femininity and masculinity that hold everyone back from finding happiness within the family structure. The pressures of life are too difficult and to top it all off there is a deadly disease that has made its way into the lives of many and this disease is aquired through sexual relations. The spread of AIDS puts a greater amount of responsibility on men to be faithful. If there is trust in a relationship then there is no reason a condom should be worn. Therefore he is faced with the decistion to either admit to being unfaithful, or giving his partner AIDS. The risk of AIDS spreading falls on the dynamic of the relationship between men and women. One woman explained that “I don’t wear condoms. I trust my man.” Condom use is something shunned, and Patton notes this as he expresses the example of the way it is assumed that Africans do not use condoms and that they have poor medical care which results in them not being able to diagnose AIDS (Patton, C. 1990: 78). A woman is also shown to state that “When you love someone you forget there is AIDS, and you fight for your man”; showing how the risk of rejection has more of an impact on the women in Phiri than does the fight against HIV/AIDS. This is a gender dynamic that puts more people at risk when it comes to contracting the disease.
The behavior of men that fail to maintain their families or the behaviour of neglecting their parental responsibilities can be explained through looking at the dynamics of gender. A lot of responsibility is placed on the girl for falling pregnant “as if they impregnated themselves” rather than both the boy and the girl; this creates a sense of detachment towards parenting. Men engage in extra-marital affairs and neglect their responsibilities of caring of their children. This becomes a burden on the girl, which sometimes, as in Phumla’s case, results in a dependence on alcohol for relief. Phumla, young mother whose boyfriend abandoned her, is unemployed and emphasises that she is continually stressed. Her resolve is that she would rather commit to alcohol than to a man as alcohol will not cheat on her. In the local community, within families, the application of double standards on young girls and boys results in boys being allowed to spend the night out, while girls are subjected to a curfew. No one will say anything if a boy misbehaves, but a female child is discriminated against if she does not follow the rules set by society. Phumla expresses this imbalance by saying that -she feels inferior as a woman she says how she now behaves like a boy she says “it’s nice to be a boy, if I can I can cut off my breasts, if you are a boy no one comments”.
Within this context, the roles of men and women change with regards to circumstances. The male perspective reveals the pressures of masculinity as an excuse for abandonment and a craving to do nothing because they have nothing. In the essence of power, the men resort to their inevitable control over women as “the weaker sex” and their desire to feel something. Love scares them for fear of not living up to the stigma of masculinity which requires a family and the ability to take care of them. In this context masculinity is defined by suffering and the general inability to be loved because in doing so they are setting themselves up for failure. Many men, like Timothy (in the film), feel the need to run away because “She loves me too much.” On the flipside, the women are left to be the backbone of family. Mothers and Grandmothers are left with the responsibility of taking care of the children in the absence of men. Some continue to believe in men, while others have given up.
Few people in the film have found true love and trust in their men, and many ignore the reality. “Not all men are bad. But they do tend to get away with everything. What is the alternative? It happens; you just have to trust that yours won’t”. Like anywhere in the world, not all men think the same. The film did an excellent job at illustrating various types of masculinity. The two brothers could not portray more different depictions of masculinity. One is a sex addicted while the other is working to uphold an AIDS support group. The differences become clear when they are all gathered together talking about what it means to be a man:
“Being a man is about suffering. We have nothing, so what do we have to give? Nothing.”
“Some people say you’re not a man until you go to prison and feel what other men are capable of.”
“Being a man in the township is about bringing home the groceries whether you are married or not.”
“Being a man is not about suffering. We are the ones who rape and refuse to wear condoms.”
There is much conflict in the notion of masculinity and it is rooted in how men and women deal with their reality. It is almost impossible to stigmatize within this context because ones masculinity and femininity is a product of their own morals and values in enduring the hardships of life in the township. Phiri is a place that is not by any means considered their own. “This is not our country. We left our way of life and came to this place.” Some men love and are faithful, some are promiscuous. Some men are employed while many are not. Some women are afraid to ever love again, while others are in denial, holding on to the idea of love for dear life. Some women trust while others do not. This film is a beautifully woven depiction of how these people deal with difference in the belly of oppression.
One would need to let go of their immediate judgment and the ability to fall back on stigmas as a means of both understanding and justifying the different dynamics portrayed in the film. It is important to observe the reality of life in this community and the effect that it has on their own social construction outside of typical stigmatic discourse. This film explores HIV/AIDS as a by-product of the struggles of masculinity, femininity as well as sexuality specific to this cultural context. Within this culture people have little to nothing to call their own, including access to healthcare, information, education and services. An example of this is shown in the scene when an old woman is seen scrimmaging for coal in the rubbish bins so that she might be able to reuse it. They are marginalized within the greater society and cut off from many of the opportunities that allow them to fulfil stigmatized gender roles. Therefore it is essential to move outside of those discourses in critically analyzing the dynamics of this film.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Coleman, L. M. (1997). In Davis, L. J. The Disability Studies Reader. New York, Routledge.
Parker, R (1999). “Within four walls”: Brazillian sexual culture and HIV/AIDS. In R. Parker & P. Aggleton (Eds.). Culture, society and sexuality: A reader. London: Routledge. 253-266.
Patton, C (1990), Inventing Aids, Routledge, New York
Posel, D (2008) “AIDS” in N. Shepherd & S. Robins “New South African Key Words” Ohio Univ. Press. USA & Jacana Media (PTY) Ltd. South Africa.
The term “their culture” refers to the African culture created during the age of exploration and colonialism. In relation to HIV/AIDS, the behaviours that lead to the prevalence of the disease amongst African people are symptomatic of their culture. The behaviours include sexual promiscuity and a refusal to use condoms, lack of education and a good understanding of the disease because they are not as smart as their European counterparts . However, culture alone does not form the basis of the explanation for the reasons why HIV/AIDS has spread in Phiri. The acknowledgement of power dynamics highlights the impact of diminished socio-economic conditions in Africa, as shown by the poor living conditions of the people in Phiri. Patton (1990) reveals how the medical research sector itself is ridden with the politics of power where more money is spent in the First World, than in the Third World. The power dynamic thus extends to the knowledgeable while compromising the information to the poorer sectors of the society. This demonstrates how the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, and Phiri especially, is not essentially linked to culture, but finds its basis in socio-economic factors.
Former South African President Thabo Mbeki displayed what is commonly considered as African culture through his denialism of the seriousness of the disease, he also made a distinction between AIDS found in Africa to that found in Europe and North America. His comments played in to the stereotype of Africans as less intelligent and lazy, clinging to the frivolous nature of their outdated and traditional cultures that reject the truth of science . Many of these characteristics that shape external views of African culture exist throughout the rest of the World. Many people in the North America still engage in sexual intercourse without condoms , denialism also exists in Brazil where people feel that if they do not engage in the practices that are associated with HIV/AIDS they face less of a risk contracting it . The idea that different types of the disease exist originated in Northern America where they felt that the disease only existed amongst homosexual men who practiced anal intercourse and drug addicts who used dirty needles while heterosexual AIDS existed in Africa. Heterosexual men in North America who had contracted the disease did so through anal intercourse with prostitutes . It is believed that African men are highly promiscuous and never live up to their responsibilities but this is something that occurs with men globally. Men are held to a different standard than women and have more freedom to move around sexually . Thus, these stereotypically African cultural characteristics are actually universal traits and therefore the prevalence of the virus in Africa cannot be explained through the colonialist ideas of African culture.
To explain the reasons for the prevalence in South Africa more specifically one needs to look at structural reasons that stem from the apartheid system, which put in place a system of oppression, based upon race. Oppression led to poverty and once entrapped in that system it is difficult to move out of it . In the film, we see that quite a number of men and women are unemployed but it is the women who are affected the most. Many teenage girls have babies and are dependent on their parents for financial support. The boyfriends of these girls convince them to have unprotected sex by saying things like “girls who use condoms are promiscuous”. Other girls engage in unprotected sex because they trust their boyfriends but once they fall pregnant, it is seen that the men responsible leave them. Because of the desperate situation regarding poverty and unemployment in the community, these girls will do whatever it takes to keep their boyfriends, as they will be their most likely source of financial support. As Phumla (in the film) said, she has a baby; she and her mother do not work; only her father does. They thus become reliant upon men, embedding the idea that women need men to survive. This power dynamic oppresses woman and empowers men. Men are thus given leeway to continue with irresponsible behaviour.
The poverty in the community extends to education as well. In the film, we see Phumla teaching the class because the teacher did not show up to work that day. The level of education offered to these children is not of a high standard and it seems as though sexual education is a problem area . One of the woman interviewed stated that she learnt about sex when her boyfriend opened her thighs and penetrated her for the first time. The lack of education is a vital cause in the spread of the disease in this community ., and also attributes to the large possibility of females in the community being abused by “more knowledgeable” men. Young girls can be easily influenced into doing things that, with the basic sexual education, they might otherwise not do. Throughout the film, we see that the topic of sex is a taboo issue unless it is spoken about in a humorous manner. The failure to deal vocally with the issue of HIV/AIDS will only lead to further infections.
“Because it is their culture” is therefore not a sufficient explanation for the reasons why HIV/AIDS has spread in Phiri. The term “culture” needs to be critically examined before determining it as the cause for the increased spread of HIV/AIDS. It is a problematic term that has inherent power dynamics as it has the ability to other difference, instead of acknowledging the values within diversity. It also ignores the power dynamics caused by history, systems of power in politics and the unequal distribution of resources within societies. The underlying cause of the spread of HIV/AIDS in Phiri is thus not solely linked to the “culture” of the people, that is, the culture denoted as “African” through colonial definition. Structural implications are the result. Economic issues can be seen as the root of many of the causes of the prevalence of the disease in South Africa rather than the supposed “African culture” .
How would you explain the dynamics portrayed in the film without resorting to stigmatising resources?
The behaviour of individuals in Wa’n Wina may be explained through using the lenses of gender, moral values, class and peer pressure. The film is a raw image of the various struggles of humanity with further emphasis on culture, gender, sexuality and HIV/ AIDS. All of these differences are interrelated and are the basis for stigmatizing discourse. However, this film is both informative and constructive. It seeks to define the reason behind difference as it exists in this context.
To begin, class determines interaction among the youth. Dumisani’s unemployed friends fail to establish any kind of relationships with girls that are in any way a higher class than them, for example, they all state that they do not approach girls that enter beauty contests as they cannot “afford” them. They are afraid to be judged by the way they dress; they cannot take these types of girls to the movies and give them the ‘nice’ things they expect. The result is a preference for girls that are ‘easy’ to entertain, for example they prefer a class of girls that smoke, drink and “like things”. When regarding the classes within Phiri it is also important to look at the overall spectrum whereby all the people living in this area should be recognised as those living in the lower classes of South African society. The fundamental difference between blacks and whites in South Africa has maintained a set of complex constructions of the lower class blacks in Phiri. This is linked to the sexuality constructions that identify HIV/AIDS as a disease of sexuality. A father in the film says that “when growing up he never had control of his life, it’s a white men’s country, not our country, and we left our way of life and came to this place”.
A further dynamic portrayed in the film is one of morality. Moral values influence the attitude towards sex, and ultimately the spread of the disease. In the local school, moral values become a means to educate school children on what is right and wrong. An example can be noted from the school assembly: the headmistress insists that although some school children may consider prostitution as a means of earning money, it is an act of immorality as God says sex before marriage is wrong. The behaviour of the youth portrayed in the film can also be attributed to peer-pressure. One of the reasons why a lot of the youth become sexually active while early is that they are pressured by their boyfriends; one male in the film says that girls “should show them that they love them, its normal”, and this love is equated to sex. In addition to this, in schools and around the community, the youth claim that you cannot be 19 and still be a virgin; the only virgins are in the rural areas. This creates a feeling of exclusion if one has not yet had sex. This perception results in individuals engaging in sex to fit in with this ‘norm’.
The general dynamic between men and women as portrayed in the film is like a game. “sometimes it feels like a dream and you wake up in the morning it will all be over. Then sometimes it feels like a game. girls playing boys, boys playing girls.” The people are already living through hardship and as a result there seems to be negative energy surrounding both femininity and masculinity that hold everyone back from finding happiness within the family structure. The pressures of life are too difficult and to top it all off there is a deadly disease that has made its way into the lives of many and this disease is aquired through sexual relations. The spread of AIDS puts a greater amount of responsibility on men to be faithful. If there is trust in a relationship then there is no reason a condom should be worn. Therefore he is faced with the decistion to either admit to being unfaithful, or giving his partner AIDS. The risk of AIDS spreading falls on the dynamic of the relationship between men and women. One woman explained that “I don’t wear condoms. I trust my man.” Condom use is something shunned, and Patton notes this as he expresses the example of the way it is assumed that Africans do not use condoms and that they have poor medical care which results in them not being able to diagnose AIDS (Patton, C. 1990: 78). A woman is also shown to state that “When you love someone you forget there is AIDS, and you fight for your man”; showing how the risk of rejection has more of an impact on the women in Phiri than does the fight against HIV/AIDS. This is a gender dynamic that puts more people at risk when it comes to contracting the disease.
The behavior of men that fail to maintain their families or the behaviour of neglecting their parental responsibilities can be explained through looking at the dynamics of gender. A lot of responsibility is placed on the girl for falling pregnant “as if they impregnated themselves” rather than both the boy and the girl; this creates a sense of detachment towards parenting. Men engage in extra-marital affairs and neglect their responsibilities of caring of their children. This becomes a burden on the girl, which sometimes, as in Phumla’s case, results in a dependence on alcohol for relief. Phumla, young mother whose boyfriend abandoned her, is unemployed and emphasises that she is continually stressed. Her resolve is that she would rather commit to alcohol than to a man as alcohol will not cheat on her. In the local community, within families, the application of double standards on young girls and boys results in boys being allowed to spend the night out, while girls are subjected to a curfew. No one will say anything if a boy misbehaves, but a female child is discriminated against if she does not follow the rules set by society. Phumla expresses this imbalance by saying that -she feels inferior as a woman she says how she now behaves like a boy she says “it’s nice to be a boy, if I can I can cut off my breasts, if you are a boy no one comments”.
Within this context, the roles of men and women change with regards to circumstances. The male perspective reveals the pressures of masculinity as an excuse for abandonment and a craving to do nothing because they have nothing. In the essence of power, the men resort to their inevitable control over women as “the weaker sex” and their desire to feel something. Love scares them for fear of not living up to the stigma of masculinity which requires a family and the ability to take care of them. In this context masculinity is defined by suffering and the general inability to be loved because in doing so they are setting themselves up for failure. Many men, like Timothy (in the film), feel the need to run away because “She loves me too much.” On the flipside, the women are left to be the backbone of family. Mothers and Grandmothers are left with the responsibility of taking care of the children in the absence of men. Some continue to believe in men, while others have given up.
Few people in the film have found true love and trust in their men, and many ignore the reality. “Not all men are bad. But they do tend to get away with everything. What is the alternative? It happens; you just have to trust that yours won’t”. Like anywhere in the world, not all men think the same. The film did an excellent job at illustrating various types of masculinity. The two brothers could not portray more different depictions of masculinity. One is a sex addicted while the other is working to uphold an AIDS support group. The differences become clear when they are all gathered together talking about what it means to be a man:
“Being a man is about suffering. We have nothing, so what do we have to give? Nothing.”
“Some people say you’re not a man until you go to prison and feel what other men are capable of.”
“Being a man in the township is about bringing home the groceries whether you are married or not.”
“Being a man is not about suffering. We are the ones who rape and refuse to wear condoms.”
There is much conflict in the notion of masculinity and it is rooted in how men and women deal with their reality. It is almost impossible to stigmatize within this context because ones masculinity and femininity is a product of their own morals and values in enduring the hardships of life in the township. Phiri is a place that is not by any means considered their own. “This is not our country. We left our way of life and came to this place.” Some men love and are faithful, some are promiscuous. Some men are employed while many are not. Some women are afraid to ever love again, while others are in denial, holding on to the idea of love for dear life. Some women trust while others do not. This film is a beautifully woven depiction of how these people deal with difference in the belly of oppression.
One would need to let go of their immediate judgment and the ability to fall back on stigmas as a means of both understanding and justifying the different dynamics portrayed in the film. It is important to observe the reality of life in this community and the effect that it has on their own social construction outside of typical stigmatic discourse. This film explores HIV/AIDS as a by-product of the struggles of masculinity, femininity as well as sexuality specific to this cultural context. Within this culture people have little to nothing to call their own, including access to healthcare, information, education and services. An example of this is shown in the scene when an old woman is seen scrimmaging for coal in the rubbish bins so that she might be able to reuse it. They are marginalized within the greater society and cut off from many of the opportunities that allow them to fulfil stigmatized gender roles. Therefore it is essential to move outside of those discourses in critically analyzing the dynamics of this film.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Coleman, L. M. (1997). In Davis, L. J. The Disability Studies Reader. New York, Routledge.
Parker, R (1999). “Within four walls”: Brazillian sexual culture and HIV/AIDS. In R. Parker & P. Aggleton (Eds.). Culture, society and sexuality: A reader. London: Routledge. 253-266.
Patton, C (1990), Inventing Aids, Routledge, New York
Posel, D (2008) “AIDS” in N. Shepherd & S. Robins “New South African Key Words” Ohio Univ. Press. USA & Jacana Media (PTY) Ltd. South Africa.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The Glow of White Women
What were the ways in which sexuality and race policed during the apartheid era?
Sexuality was controlled through race which was the main signifier of difference and the basis of separate development in apartheid South Africa. The main sexualities focused upon were those of the white woman and the black man because the ideas of their sexuality stood in stark contrast to each other. The white woman was pure and passive with the black man was oversexualized and active (Segal; 1997: 222, McEwan: 5). These qualities (race and sexuality) were controlled by the law which sought complete separation of the races.
There were physical barriers that separated races as space became highly politicized. In the film, the narrator refers to a railway line that separated the whites and non-whites in Nelspruit. Sexuality was controlled socially through stereotypes and stigmas and then through laws such as the Immorality and Mixed Marriages Acts which allowed the police to search homes and arrest offenders. White women’s sexuality was also controlled through fear, a fear of the black man, and only the white man could protect them against through the measures of apartheid. Not only was their sexuality controlled, but so was their autonomy and freedom (Pharr; 1997: 14).
What possibilities were closed down?
South Africa’s apartheid regime silenced the discussion of sexuality through repressive state laws and censorship such as the Immorality Act which were put in place to maintain the interests of the white privileged society. This was done through prohibiting sex across racial boundaries in addition to thriving colonial anxieties regarding the nature of black sexuality, which contributed to maintaining barriers which prevented sex from entering public discourse-restricted racial sex to the domestic sphere (McEwen, H. 11). However, this is in contradiction with the state of the human anatomy as Segal states: “…isn’t it (sexuality) our anatomy, after all, our destiny?” (Segal: 1997:184); therefore it is practical to ask what race has to do with the boundaries of sexuality. The way in which sexuality was controlled during this time shows how “sexuality plays a privileged role” and thus its boundaries were dictated according to the Act (Segal: 1997: 184).
Intimate relationships that occurred between black men and white women were seen as just about sex or sexual encounters. The way in which white women and black men viewed each other was as exotic encounters, these experiences were not about social harmony but merely a sexual encounter. The differences between black men and white women were seen as exciting but problematic. Kinsey argued that sexual satisfaction should be seen as acceptable in whatever form it is manifested (Segal, L. 1997: 194). The Immorality Act prohibited interracial relationships because they were viewed as taboo.
These interracial relationships were closed down during the apartheid era because black men were stereotyped as sex addicts, thieves, monsters or serial rapists. Some women in the film said “black men are worse, perhaps dirty”. Nude published photographs of white women were banned or censored out of a fear of being raped. This film illustrates how white women’s sexualities were played out by their husbands while at the same time still trying to protect their purity. The rigidity of the gendered symbolism of the sex act remains one of key factors which can rob women of a sense of sexual agency while at the same time encouraging men’s sexual coerciveness of their masculinity (Segal, L. 1997: 221). The incident of the Yeoville rapist who targeted white women made other white women in interracial relationships feel scared and uncomfortable. Accusations against black men resulted in a lack of trust which brought out these women’s insecurities.
The possibility of white men being rapists was closed down during the apartheid era. White men felt threatened by black men because of the size of the penis “black men have bigger ones and are taking our women”. This shows white people’s obsession with black men’s penises both from a perspective of fear as well as fascination and curiosity. The body and its pleasures are the target of surveillance; the body is thus disembodied, becoming merely unstable or empty space around which discourse of sexuality has been framed. This is subject to external manipulations of power, cultural or institutional frames such as apartheid (Segal, L. 1997: 212). The cultural construction of sexuality was a means in which men brought out their power and control over women’s bodies and pleasures (Segal, L. 1997: 185).
The overpopulating black body, during the apartheid era, was presented as hypersexual and was propagated in various forms of media through articulations or ‘racial’ otherness and difference. His sexuality was closed down by creating images of him as an uncontrollable sexual animal. Thus his ability to engage in consensual sexual relations with a partner of choice was ruled out by his expected behavior. It was as understood that he acted only on primal instinct and raw lust. His sexuality was also controlled by the white woman who was dominant over the black gardener working for their family. She found her power through her sexuality and there lay a desire to further conquer the black man by having intercourse with him (McEwan: 6).
There was an obsession of racial difference even though the whites did not see themselves as a race. The racial dimensions of sexuality and its social regulation during the apartheid era highlights the historic acceptance of subordinated ethnic groups. The discursive investment in the definition of non white bodies as bestial resulted in interracial affairs during the apartheid era as never a private affair but always under pubic scrutiny (Segal, L. 1997: 188)
Categories in the apartheid era were highly essentialized because of racial differences. In the film a white woman talks about having an affair with a senior officer of the ANC, but his bodyguards constantly showed him other Zulu women and would compare Zulu women to the white woman. Zulu woman were seen as ideal as they had large breasts and buttocks. This racialized ideologies structured relations among men and women, which shows how South Africa during the apartheid era was defined or articulated by race. This shows how sexuality is socially scripted behavior. Social aspects instead of physical aspects are said to generate arousal and organize action (Segal, L. 1997:207). Black women were left out of the dominant femininity during the apartheid era which consisted of blonde, white women with blue eyes.
What possibilities were being opened up?
According to Segal (1997) sex has always been a complex and contested domain; it is also a fictional unity, which is the key site for social regulation and control in modern times.
According to the film, the dominant femininity is characterised as ‘white, blonde and blue-eyed’. Given that this is during the apartheid era, white women’s sexuality is interpreted as superior and fairer, as compared to a black woman’s. This elevated their status as citizens in South Africa. They appear on prominent magazines such as Fairlady, the opportunity to express white female sexuality was more open and acceptable than it was for black or coloured women.
Sex was an activity that was free of apartheid; it brought men and women of different racial backgrounds together, especially after the introduction of the Immorality Act. The reaction to this act was a great desire to experience what was considered taboo. White women could go to any bar and pick up a black man to ‘hook up with’. This illustrates white women’s obsessions with black men’s highly sexualized bodies. The manner in which relationships between black men and white women were policed led to black men’s obsession with white women as they were denied white women. Thus the possibilities for interracial relationships were opened up even though it was not about social harmony or the struggle; it was about breaking rules and fulfilling desires. The sexual act itself was used as an opportunity for the inferior i.e. black man to confirm his manhood by sleeping with a white woman. The ability to pleasure a white woman was equated to a confirmation of being human and equal.
Race and sexuality were used as markers for access to resources; therefore white individuals had better opportunities in terms of housing and employment, as compared to resources in the townships. Social spheres such as cinemas were racially divided, whites sat at the front and a wall divided them from the blacks that sat at the back but separation created opportunities for non-white men to engage in otherwise condemned behavior such as masturbation in public spaces.
Bans that were imposed on sexual relations, for example the Immorality Act (Section 16) that even dictated sexual relations and behaviour in the private sphere; exposed the ills of the apartheid system. This opened it up to criticism and led to an increase in negativity towards the apartheid system. Aspects such as this brought the opportunity for its abolishment and change.
Whose interests are at stake?
“Patriarchy is the enforced belief in male dominance and control - is the ideology and sexism system that holds it in place” (Pharr: 1997: 8). The patriarchal system in combination with racial segregation that defined apartheid South Africa’s policies situated the white male at the very top of the social order with all the power. Thus the interests at stake were his and those similar to him. Although it seemed as though the interests of white women and the white population of apartheid South Africa are also at stake, it was just the need of the white man to control all of those around him. It is a matter of his pride that needs to be preserved as well as his position on top of the gender hierarchy.
Men need to protect their pride. By denying white women access to the “hypersexualized” black man, who could guarantee pleasure with their substantially bigger penises, higher sex drive and greater stamina, white men could maintain their sexual dominance (McEwan: 6,18). The film features a stand-up comedy piece by Evita Bezuidenhout in which she use two cactuses to represent the white rule of apartheid and the black rule of democracy. The cactus from apartheid was short and fat, while the cactus from the new democracy was thinner but long, strong and straight with a bulb like top. These are phallic symbols for the white and black man. They signify impotency and virility respectively which explains the fear and necessity that the white man has to control the black man. Thus as long as the white woman is ignorant of what she is missing the white man willing remain in sexual demand and can continue to feel masculine. They fear that once their women have experienced the black man they will not want to return to the white men (McEwan: 6). Here is illustrated the stereotype of women’s uncontrollable sexuality.
Women on the other hand needed to be protected against these dangerous men. They needed to maintain their purity which a black man would undoubtedly taint with his repulsive body and mentality. This is the white woman who has been placed upon a pedestal as the symbol of all that is pure, feminine, beautiful as highlighted in magazines that showed of what femininity entailed by displaying their bodies through the media. White women that were involved in pornography found this as a means or opportunity to make money although they never felt exploited. These publications as well as magazines gave black men access to white women and maintaining their obsession. White women’s sexuality was used to both entice black men, as well as to reinforce his inferiority because he was not allowed to engage with her. If white women were seen in sexual poses showing too much skin it might cause the black man to physically harm the woman because he was incapable of understanding sentimental and loving relationships. The Yeoville rapist confirmed these myths about the savage black man.
The understanding held by the white population was that their race needed to be protected from contamination of black DNA, in order to maintain their superiority and purity as a race. If black and white were allowed to procreate it would not only undermine the purity of the white race, but it would also entitle the black man to think that he was a human because he was allowed to touch the white woman (McEwan; 11). By engaging in sexual intercourse with her he could confirm his manhood and humanity. Therefore he had to be contained and reminded that he is inferior which allows him to let himself be dominated by the white man. People’s identity was limited in accordance with their racial space, hence there was also a limited sexuality and self identification: “dynamics of gender, tied with heterosexual imperatives (or our resistance to them), provide the foundations of our sense of self”; (Segal: 1997: 185).
Conclusion
During the apartheid era sexuality was controlled through race. The racial hierarchy awarded those higher up, sexual power over those lower down. Because the interracial sexual encounters between white woman and black men meant nothing, it would have no effect on the hierarchy. If anything these sexual liaisons served to further entrench the sexual stereotypes such as white obsession with a black man’s sexuality, the black man’s animalistic sexual nature and lack of humanity. He allowed himself to be controlled through his sexuality and was inevitably seen as nothing more than an object to pleasure the white woman.
White women’s sexuality was also closed down as she confirmed through her actions with black men that she had an uncontrollable sexuality, she as lustful and dangerous.
References:
McEwan, H. (In Press) “Fauna, Flora and Fucking: Female Sex Safaris in South Africa” in Steyn, M. E. and Van Zyl, M. On/off the Edge: Shaping Sexualities Vol. 2
Pharr, S. (1997) “Chapter 1” in Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism. Berkley, CA: Chardon Press
Segal, L. (1997) “Sexualities” in Woodward, K. (ed.) Identity and Difference. London; Sage.
Sexuality was controlled through race which was the main signifier of difference and the basis of separate development in apartheid South Africa. The main sexualities focused upon were those of the white woman and the black man because the ideas of their sexuality stood in stark contrast to each other. The white woman was pure and passive with the black man was oversexualized and active (Segal; 1997: 222, McEwan: 5). These qualities (race and sexuality) were controlled by the law which sought complete separation of the races.
There were physical barriers that separated races as space became highly politicized. In the film, the narrator refers to a railway line that separated the whites and non-whites in Nelspruit. Sexuality was controlled socially through stereotypes and stigmas and then through laws such as the Immorality and Mixed Marriages Acts which allowed the police to search homes and arrest offenders. White women’s sexuality was also controlled through fear, a fear of the black man, and only the white man could protect them against through the measures of apartheid. Not only was their sexuality controlled, but so was their autonomy and freedom (Pharr; 1997: 14).
What possibilities were closed down?
South Africa’s apartheid regime silenced the discussion of sexuality through repressive state laws and censorship such as the Immorality Act which were put in place to maintain the interests of the white privileged society. This was done through prohibiting sex across racial boundaries in addition to thriving colonial anxieties regarding the nature of black sexuality, which contributed to maintaining barriers which prevented sex from entering public discourse-restricted racial sex to the domestic sphere (McEwen, H. 11). However, this is in contradiction with the state of the human anatomy as Segal states: “…isn’t it (sexuality) our anatomy, after all, our destiny?” (Segal: 1997:184); therefore it is practical to ask what race has to do with the boundaries of sexuality. The way in which sexuality was controlled during this time shows how “sexuality plays a privileged role” and thus its boundaries were dictated according to the Act (Segal: 1997: 184).
Intimate relationships that occurred between black men and white women were seen as just about sex or sexual encounters. The way in which white women and black men viewed each other was as exotic encounters, these experiences were not about social harmony but merely a sexual encounter. The differences between black men and white women were seen as exciting but problematic. Kinsey argued that sexual satisfaction should be seen as acceptable in whatever form it is manifested (Segal, L. 1997: 194). The Immorality Act prohibited interracial relationships because they were viewed as taboo.
These interracial relationships were closed down during the apartheid era because black men were stereotyped as sex addicts, thieves, monsters or serial rapists. Some women in the film said “black men are worse, perhaps dirty”. Nude published photographs of white women were banned or censored out of a fear of being raped. This film illustrates how white women’s sexualities were played out by their husbands while at the same time still trying to protect their purity. The rigidity of the gendered symbolism of the sex act remains one of key factors which can rob women of a sense of sexual agency while at the same time encouraging men’s sexual coerciveness of their masculinity (Segal, L. 1997: 221). The incident of the Yeoville rapist who targeted white women made other white women in interracial relationships feel scared and uncomfortable. Accusations against black men resulted in a lack of trust which brought out these women’s insecurities.
The possibility of white men being rapists was closed down during the apartheid era. White men felt threatened by black men because of the size of the penis “black men have bigger ones and are taking our women”. This shows white people’s obsession with black men’s penises both from a perspective of fear as well as fascination and curiosity. The body and its pleasures are the target of surveillance; the body is thus disembodied, becoming merely unstable or empty space around which discourse of sexuality has been framed. This is subject to external manipulations of power, cultural or institutional frames such as apartheid (Segal, L. 1997: 212). The cultural construction of sexuality was a means in which men brought out their power and control over women’s bodies and pleasures (Segal, L. 1997: 185).
The overpopulating black body, during the apartheid era, was presented as hypersexual and was propagated in various forms of media through articulations or ‘racial’ otherness and difference. His sexuality was closed down by creating images of him as an uncontrollable sexual animal. Thus his ability to engage in consensual sexual relations with a partner of choice was ruled out by his expected behavior. It was as understood that he acted only on primal instinct and raw lust. His sexuality was also controlled by the white woman who was dominant over the black gardener working for their family. She found her power through her sexuality and there lay a desire to further conquer the black man by having intercourse with him (McEwan: 6).
There was an obsession of racial difference even though the whites did not see themselves as a race. The racial dimensions of sexuality and its social regulation during the apartheid era highlights the historic acceptance of subordinated ethnic groups. The discursive investment in the definition of non white bodies as bestial resulted in interracial affairs during the apartheid era as never a private affair but always under pubic scrutiny (Segal, L. 1997: 188)
Categories in the apartheid era were highly essentialized because of racial differences. In the film a white woman talks about having an affair with a senior officer of the ANC, but his bodyguards constantly showed him other Zulu women and would compare Zulu women to the white woman. Zulu woman were seen as ideal as they had large breasts and buttocks. This racialized ideologies structured relations among men and women, which shows how South Africa during the apartheid era was defined or articulated by race. This shows how sexuality is socially scripted behavior. Social aspects instead of physical aspects are said to generate arousal and organize action (Segal, L. 1997:207). Black women were left out of the dominant femininity during the apartheid era which consisted of blonde, white women with blue eyes.
What possibilities were being opened up?
According to Segal (1997) sex has always been a complex and contested domain; it is also a fictional unity, which is the key site for social regulation and control in modern times.
According to the film, the dominant femininity is characterised as ‘white, blonde and blue-eyed’. Given that this is during the apartheid era, white women’s sexuality is interpreted as superior and fairer, as compared to a black woman’s. This elevated their status as citizens in South Africa. They appear on prominent magazines such as Fairlady, the opportunity to express white female sexuality was more open and acceptable than it was for black or coloured women.
Sex was an activity that was free of apartheid; it brought men and women of different racial backgrounds together, especially after the introduction of the Immorality Act. The reaction to this act was a great desire to experience what was considered taboo. White women could go to any bar and pick up a black man to ‘hook up with’. This illustrates white women’s obsessions with black men’s highly sexualized bodies. The manner in which relationships between black men and white women were policed led to black men’s obsession with white women as they were denied white women. Thus the possibilities for interracial relationships were opened up even though it was not about social harmony or the struggle; it was about breaking rules and fulfilling desires. The sexual act itself was used as an opportunity for the inferior i.e. black man to confirm his manhood by sleeping with a white woman. The ability to pleasure a white woman was equated to a confirmation of being human and equal.
Race and sexuality were used as markers for access to resources; therefore white individuals had better opportunities in terms of housing and employment, as compared to resources in the townships. Social spheres such as cinemas were racially divided, whites sat at the front and a wall divided them from the blacks that sat at the back but separation created opportunities for non-white men to engage in otherwise condemned behavior such as masturbation in public spaces.
Bans that were imposed on sexual relations, for example the Immorality Act (Section 16) that even dictated sexual relations and behaviour in the private sphere; exposed the ills of the apartheid system. This opened it up to criticism and led to an increase in negativity towards the apartheid system. Aspects such as this brought the opportunity for its abolishment and change.
Whose interests are at stake?
“Patriarchy is the enforced belief in male dominance and control - is the ideology and sexism system that holds it in place” (Pharr: 1997: 8). The patriarchal system in combination with racial segregation that defined apartheid South Africa’s policies situated the white male at the very top of the social order with all the power. Thus the interests at stake were his and those similar to him. Although it seemed as though the interests of white women and the white population of apartheid South Africa are also at stake, it was just the need of the white man to control all of those around him. It is a matter of his pride that needs to be preserved as well as his position on top of the gender hierarchy.
Men need to protect their pride. By denying white women access to the “hypersexualized” black man, who could guarantee pleasure with their substantially bigger penises, higher sex drive and greater stamina, white men could maintain their sexual dominance (McEwan: 6,18). The film features a stand-up comedy piece by Evita Bezuidenhout in which she use two cactuses to represent the white rule of apartheid and the black rule of democracy. The cactus from apartheid was short and fat, while the cactus from the new democracy was thinner but long, strong and straight with a bulb like top. These are phallic symbols for the white and black man. They signify impotency and virility respectively which explains the fear and necessity that the white man has to control the black man. Thus as long as the white woman is ignorant of what she is missing the white man willing remain in sexual demand and can continue to feel masculine. They fear that once their women have experienced the black man they will not want to return to the white men (McEwan: 6). Here is illustrated the stereotype of women’s uncontrollable sexuality.
Women on the other hand needed to be protected against these dangerous men. They needed to maintain their purity which a black man would undoubtedly taint with his repulsive body and mentality. This is the white woman who has been placed upon a pedestal as the symbol of all that is pure, feminine, beautiful as highlighted in magazines that showed of what femininity entailed by displaying their bodies through the media. White women that were involved in pornography found this as a means or opportunity to make money although they never felt exploited. These publications as well as magazines gave black men access to white women and maintaining their obsession. White women’s sexuality was used to both entice black men, as well as to reinforce his inferiority because he was not allowed to engage with her. If white women were seen in sexual poses showing too much skin it might cause the black man to physically harm the woman because he was incapable of understanding sentimental and loving relationships. The Yeoville rapist confirmed these myths about the savage black man.
The understanding held by the white population was that their race needed to be protected from contamination of black DNA, in order to maintain their superiority and purity as a race. If black and white were allowed to procreate it would not only undermine the purity of the white race, but it would also entitle the black man to think that he was a human because he was allowed to touch the white woman (McEwan; 11). By engaging in sexual intercourse with her he could confirm his manhood and humanity. Therefore he had to be contained and reminded that he is inferior which allows him to let himself be dominated by the white man. People’s identity was limited in accordance with their racial space, hence there was also a limited sexuality and self identification: “dynamics of gender, tied with heterosexual imperatives (or our resistance to them), provide the foundations of our sense of self”; (Segal: 1997: 185).
Conclusion
During the apartheid era sexuality was controlled through race. The racial hierarchy awarded those higher up, sexual power over those lower down. Because the interracial sexual encounters between white woman and black men meant nothing, it would have no effect on the hierarchy. If anything these sexual liaisons served to further entrench the sexual stereotypes such as white obsession with a black man’s sexuality, the black man’s animalistic sexual nature and lack of humanity. He allowed himself to be controlled through his sexuality and was inevitably seen as nothing more than an object to pleasure the white woman.
White women’s sexuality was also closed down as she confirmed through her actions with black men that she had an uncontrollable sexuality, she as lustful and dangerous.
References:
McEwan, H. (In Press) “Fauna, Flora and Fucking: Female Sex Safaris in South Africa” in Steyn, M. E. and Van Zyl, M. On/off the Edge: Shaping Sexualities Vol. 2
Pharr, S. (1997) “Chapter 1” in Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism. Berkley, CA: Chardon Press
Segal, L. (1997) “Sexualities” in Woodward, K. (ed.) Identity and Difference. London; Sage.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Children of a Lesser God
SOC 3026S
Group Project
Group 3
1) How does the film, Children of a Lesser God help us to understand:
- Disability and Sexuality
In the film, Sarah used her sexuality to overcome her disability. People are judged by their sexuality and that is where their worth begins to stem from. According to Popplestone “in the arena of sex, the reality is that physical disabilities limit or alter sexual awareness”. [Popplestone: (in Press): 2]. In the film however, Sarah wanted to prove her worth and to be looked at in the same light as other females, thus she was promiscuous at a young age, as well as abused by men in that they took advantage of her disability. This is in contrast to Popplestone’s notion as her promiscuity rebelled against the absence of gender expectations [Popplestone: (in Press): 10]. Sarah’s behaviour disputes the notion that disabled people are constructed from a young age as asexual; Sarah rebelled against these ideas. [Sait: (in Press): 4, 5]. The fact that she did not know the names of the boys she had slept with reinforces the idea that she was only good for sex since she is not seen as “a person”; thus, disabled women are more susceptible to sexual abuse than men. [Sait: (in Press)]
Within the deaf community represented in the film, some of the deaf people’s responses when asked why they would like to be able to lip-read and talk alluded to the fact that they do so in order that they may be integrated in to the dating scene like any other able-bodied men. On of the characters says that if he is able to talk then he too may be able to attract “hearing girls”.
Sarah’s mother’s absence from Sarah’s emotional life somewhat encourages Sarah’s promiscuity. Sarah’s mother seemed to be satisfied enough with the fact that Sarah was recognised sexually by the opposite sex, but she did not actively educate her on the ways in which Sarah could possibly be abused by them; enabling Sarah as a victim.
- Disability and Gender
Sarah is assigned jobs that are generally noted by society as jobs for females. Her job as a cleaner in the school is a double burden in that she was deemed one of the smartest students in the school, but because of her abuse, withdrew and stopped exceeding her potential. That she is a woman as well, who is disabled, contributes to this double burden.
James’s approach to her initially is of one who wants to take care of her, which is a self-assigned role that she initially rejects. He tells the principal (their employer) that she will be moving in with him (James) without having initially discussed this with her, showing the power he holds as an able-bodied man when it comes to making decisions.
The principal’s reaction initially is one where he does not take James seriously, nor does he take the relationship he has with Sarah as seriously as he probably would have had they been two able-bodied people in the relationship. The principal alludes to the fact that the Sarah cannot succeed beyond her current stage, and that she is good enough as she is and will not need James to better her social status. He also implies through this that she is only fit to be a house cleaner (“What, so now she will become your maid”). He does not see beyond the scope of her disability and thus only sees her as a dependent and someone who cannot give more to society than her role as a cleaner.
That women are blamed for children’s disabilities is shown in the movie as Sarah’s father leaves the family when Sarah is very young. According to Popplestone, “men demand perfection; very often they abandon the mothers of their own disabled children. It takes a very special man to look past what society sees as an imperfection.” [Popplestone: (in Press): 11]. Sarah’s mother confesses that it was because he felt like a failure at having borne a disabled child. She also confesses that she hated Sarah for “making” her husband leave, which resulted in her negligent nature in rearing Sarah. This also contributes to the reason why Sarah was sent to the school. There are also sentiments that the father blames Sarah’s mother for birthing a deaf child, showing the dominance of the man’s voice in the direction in which a family develops. [Popplestone: (in Press): 11]
As a woman, Sarah uses her disability to enable herself, helping her to realise her autonomy and identities. She realises how her relationship with James was becoming detrimental to her eve becoming independent and content with her own individuality as a so-called disabled person. James’ presence, despite his longing to make her “normal”, inevitably made her inferior and by separating herself from him, Sarah is able to take back her power as a woman and as a disabled woman in the relationship. Her actions force James to also recognise her as a powerful and attractive woman that he lusts after and not for her perceived weaknesses as a disabled person. She forces him to go beyond the distinction of able-bodied vs. disabled-bodied within the constructs of their relationship. Instead, by the end of the film their relationship had become more so defined by the notion of “normalcy” as they were finally able to find the silence; a meeting place outside of the confines of social stratifications where they were bothe free to love. Sarah: “unless you let me be an individual, an I, just as you are, you will never truly be able to come inside my silence and know me. And until you do that, I will never let myself know you. Until that time, we cannot be joined. We cannot share a relationship”. [Children of a Lesser God].
- Disability and Class
Poverty is linked with disability in that parents who cannot afford to send their children off to special schools lessen the chances of their children having a place to work and attempt to be accepted in society. Parents who also cannot afford to send their children to these schools are also uneducated about their children’s needs. This automatically places the disabled in the lower economic classes within any society because of the constructs of society itself. It is generally more difficult to be hired for a job as a disabled person in comparison to an able-bodied person. Thus, poverty is imminent because the disabled are forced inevitably to be at the bottom of the social ladder as Sait stated “Poverty and disability are mutually reinforcing: the links between race and poverty, and disability and poverty are many, as are links between gender and poverty.” [Sait: (in Press): 2]. Because Sarah refuses to speak, she settles on becoming a cleaner. However she does re-empower herself in wanting to further her education and thus help her self find her way up the social ladder.
In addition to the difficulty finding employment, Children of a Lesser God depicts how people who are termed “disabled” are institutionalised because of their difference. [Hummer: 1985: 25]. The school itself is situated far from the rest of society, marginalising one aspect of society, and thus creating a barrier that is linked to lower (the disabled) class and the rest of the middle and upper class societies (the able bodied).
2) How does the film illustrate social processes of disabling certain bodies?
The film is about deaf people, and although it seems it has a message for all, it becomes ironic that it cannot completely reach those that are deaf as there are no subtitles. The notion that without speech one is not accepted in to society shows James’ role as a participant in society trying to enable the disable through speech.
Being disabled is seen as a disadvantage, and society further disables them through institutionalising the deaf in places that are far from the rest of “normal” society. This is done so that they may be “fixed”, and then reintegrated in to society once more. The school that is shown in the movie is situated on an island on its own, far from the rest of society. However this is a flawed system as sign language is not taught to the rest of society, therefore enabling disabled ness. By society not integrating themselves in to the disabled people’s realm, it further isolates the two groups of peoples. As a result, the disabled continue to be labelled as disabled.
The process of women empowerment is also shown through Sarah’s character as she defies the system. She refuses to speak saying: “I will not do anything I am not good at”. [Sarah in Children of a Lesser God]. Although she is seen as recluse and isolated in the beginning, conforming to what society sees disabled people as. She thus makes a statement by leaving James, and trying to empower herself. She initiates a restoration of her relationship with her mother, finds a job, and comes to find middle ground with James by only returning to the relationship once she herself feels that she has regained her power. This becomes an example of the strength of femininity and the human spirit.
Both of them reconcile their “voice” and “silence” by overcoming societal norms and stigmas. The ending of the film with the reconciliation of James and Sarah shows an important aspect of society – there has to be a mid-point where able bodied and the disabled meet.
*It is important to recognise disability and gender as social constructs.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Charlton, J. I. (2002). Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability, Oppression and Empowerment. London: Univeristy of California Press. 21-36.
Hammer, J. 1985. Transforming consciousness: Women and the new reproductive technologies. In Cora et al, man-made women: How new reproductive technologies affect women. London: Hutchinson. 88-109.
Popplestone, R (in Press) Are blind people better lovers? In Steyn, M. E. and Van Zyl, M. On/off the edge: Shaping Sexualities Vol. 22
Sait, W., Lorenzi, T. Steyn, M. and Van Zyl, M. (in Press) [Mothering disabled children] In Steyn, M. E. and Van Zyl, M. On/off the edge: Shaping sexualities Vol.
Thomposon, R. G. (1997). Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press. 19-51
Group Project
Group 3
1) How does the film, Children of a Lesser God help us to understand:
- Disability and Sexuality
In the film, Sarah used her sexuality to overcome her disability. People are judged by their sexuality and that is where their worth begins to stem from. According to Popplestone “in the arena of sex, the reality is that physical disabilities limit or alter sexual awareness”. [Popplestone: (in Press): 2]. In the film however, Sarah wanted to prove her worth and to be looked at in the same light as other females, thus she was promiscuous at a young age, as well as abused by men in that they took advantage of her disability. This is in contrast to Popplestone’s notion as her promiscuity rebelled against the absence of gender expectations [Popplestone: (in Press): 10]. Sarah’s behaviour disputes the notion that disabled people are constructed from a young age as asexual; Sarah rebelled against these ideas. [Sait: (in Press): 4, 5]. The fact that she did not know the names of the boys she had slept with reinforces the idea that she was only good for sex since she is not seen as “a person”; thus, disabled women are more susceptible to sexual abuse than men. [Sait: (in Press)]
Within the deaf community represented in the film, some of the deaf people’s responses when asked why they would like to be able to lip-read and talk alluded to the fact that they do so in order that they may be integrated in to the dating scene like any other able-bodied men. On of the characters says that if he is able to talk then he too may be able to attract “hearing girls”.
Sarah’s mother’s absence from Sarah’s emotional life somewhat encourages Sarah’s promiscuity. Sarah’s mother seemed to be satisfied enough with the fact that Sarah was recognised sexually by the opposite sex, but she did not actively educate her on the ways in which Sarah could possibly be abused by them; enabling Sarah as a victim.
- Disability and Gender
Sarah is assigned jobs that are generally noted by society as jobs for females. Her job as a cleaner in the school is a double burden in that she was deemed one of the smartest students in the school, but because of her abuse, withdrew and stopped exceeding her potential. That she is a woman as well, who is disabled, contributes to this double burden.
James’s approach to her initially is of one who wants to take care of her, which is a self-assigned role that she initially rejects. He tells the principal (their employer) that she will be moving in with him (James) without having initially discussed this with her, showing the power he holds as an able-bodied man when it comes to making decisions.
The principal’s reaction initially is one where he does not take James seriously, nor does he take the relationship he has with Sarah as seriously as he probably would have had they been two able-bodied people in the relationship. The principal alludes to the fact that the Sarah cannot succeed beyond her current stage, and that she is good enough as she is and will not need James to better her social status. He also implies through this that she is only fit to be a house cleaner (“What, so now she will become your maid”). He does not see beyond the scope of her disability and thus only sees her as a dependent and someone who cannot give more to society than her role as a cleaner.
That women are blamed for children’s disabilities is shown in the movie as Sarah’s father leaves the family when Sarah is very young. According to Popplestone, “men demand perfection; very often they abandon the mothers of their own disabled children. It takes a very special man to look past what society sees as an imperfection.” [Popplestone: (in Press): 11]. Sarah’s mother confesses that it was because he felt like a failure at having borne a disabled child. She also confesses that she hated Sarah for “making” her husband leave, which resulted in her negligent nature in rearing Sarah. This also contributes to the reason why Sarah was sent to the school. There are also sentiments that the father blames Sarah’s mother for birthing a deaf child, showing the dominance of the man’s voice in the direction in which a family develops. [Popplestone: (in Press): 11]
As a woman, Sarah uses her disability to enable herself, helping her to realise her autonomy and identities. She realises how her relationship with James was becoming detrimental to her eve becoming independent and content with her own individuality as a so-called disabled person. James’ presence, despite his longing to make her “normal”, inevitably made her inferior and by separating herself from him, Sarah is able to take back her power as a woman and as a disabled woman in the relationship. Her actions force James to also recognise her as a powerful and attractive woman that he lusts after and not for her perceived weaknesses as a disabled person. She forces him to go beyond the distinction of able-bodied vs. disabled-bodied within the constructs of their relationship. Instead, by the end of the film their relationship had become more so defined by the notion of “normalcy” as they were finally able to find the silence; a meeting place outside of the confines of social stratifications where they were bothe free to love. Sarah: “unless you let me be an individual, an I, just as you are, you will never truly be able to come inside my silence and know me. And until you do that, I will never let myself know you. Until that time, we cannot be joined. We cannot share a relationship”. [Children of a Lesser God].
- Disability and Class
Poverty is linked with disability in that parents who cannot afford to send their children off to special schools lessen the chances of their children having a place to work and attempt to be accepted in society. Parents who also cannot afford to send their children to these schools are also uneducated about their children’s needs. This automatically places the disabled in the lower economic classes within any society because of the constructs of society itself. It is generally more difficult to be hired for a job as a disabled person in comparison to an able-bodied person. Thus, poverty is imminent because the disabled are forced inevitably to be at the bottom of the social ladder as Sait stated “Poverty and disability are mutually reinforcing: the links between race and poverty, and disability and poverty are many, as are links between gender and poverty.” [Sait: (in Press): 2]. Because Sarah refuses to speak, she settles on becoming a cleaner. However she does re-empower herself in wanting to further her education and thus help her self find her way up the social ladder.
In addition to the difficulty finding employment, Children of a Lesser God depicts how people who are termed “disabled” are institutionalised because of their difference. [Hummer: 1985: 25]. The school itself is situated far from the rest of society, marginalising one aspect of society, and thus creating a barrier that is linked to lower (the disabled) class and the rest of the middle and upper class societies (the able bodied).
2) How does the film illustrate social processes of disabling certain bodies?
The film is about deaf people, and although it seems it has a message for all, it becomes ironic that it cannot completely reach those that are deaf as there are no subtitles. The notion that without speech one is not accepted in to society shows James’ role as a participant in society trying to enable the disable through speech.
Being disabled is seen as a disadvantage, and society further disables them through institutionalising the deaf in places that are far from the rest of “normal” society. This is done so that they may be “fixed”, and then reintegrated in to society once more. The school that is shown in the movie is situated on an island on its own, far from the rest of society. However this is a flawed system as sign language is not taught to the rest of society, therefore enabling disabled ness. By society not integrating themselves in to the disabled people’s realm, it further isolates the two groups of peoples. As a result, the disabled continue to be labelled as disabled.
The process of women empowerment is also shown through Sarah’s character as she defies the system. She refuses to speak saying: “I will not do anything I am not good at”. [Sarah in Children of a Lesser God]. Although she is seen as recluse and isolated in the beginning, conforming to what society sees disabled people as. She thus makes a statement by leaving James, and trying to empower herself. She initiates a restoration of her relationship with her mother, finds a job, and comes to find middle ground with James by only returning to the relationship once she herself feels that she has regained her power. This becomes an example of the strength of femininity and the human spirit.
Both of them reconcile their “voice” and “silence” by overcoming societal norms and stigmas. The ending of the film with the reconciliation of James and Sarah shows an important aspect of society – there has to be a mid-point where able bodied and the disabled meet.
*It is important to recognise disability and gender as social constructs.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Charlton, J. I. (2002). Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability, Oppression and Empowerment. London: Univeristy of California Press. 21-36.
Hammer, J. 1985. Transforming consciousness: Women and the new reproductive technologies. In Cora et al, man-made women: How new reproductive technologies affect women. London: Hutchinson. 88-109.
Popplestone, R (in Press) Are blind people better lovers? In Steyn, M. E. and Van Zyl, M. On/off the edge: Shaping Sexualities Vol. 22
Sait, W., Lorenzi, T. Steyn, M. and Van Zyl, M. (in Press) [Mothering disabled children] In Steyn, M. E. and Van Zyl, M. On/off the edge: Shaping sexualities Vol.
Thomposon, R. G. (1997). Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disability in American Culture and Literature. New York: Columbia University Press. 19-51
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Full Monty
Group assignment 2:
1) What does TFM show us about how the gender order is dependent upon the construction of masculinity and femininity? (i.e. male sexuality constructed in part around the male ‘gaze’ of the female and the objectification of women’s bodies.) For this question it is useful to reflect on the scene depicting the man comparing shapes, sizes and colours of their bodies and sharing their anxieties about their performance.
Gaz: Tops off….no looking, no laughing…Fat, David, is a feminist issue [The Full Monty]
Dave: The less I eat the fatter I get (Response: So stuff yourself thin then!) [The Full Monty]
The gender order is dependent upon the construction of masculinity and femininity. Dave has insecurities about his weight. It is said that “fat a ‘feminist issue’” [The Full Monty] and not a masculine issue. This is a contradiction because he is a man but constantly looks in the mirror or plays with his stomach in a way that shows that he is uncomfortable with his weight. There is a sense that his weight causes sentiments of emasculation and this in turn affects his sexual drive and his relationship with his wife. He also begins to doubt his wife’s fidelity as a result, although these doubts are rooted in his unemployment. This is shown in the scene when his wife is seen to be laughing with another man and he automatically thinks that she is having an affair with him.
Being fat is seen as a feminist issue since women are said to be the one who always finding mans and ways of understanding their bodies and their functions. This represents the power of regularity in the regimes of addressing the body. [Segal: 1997: 211]
Dave also compares himself to Barrington, a black man whom he believes to be ‘well-endowered’, and he brings back this insecurity to his wife. He expects Barrington to have a larger penis, something believed to denote the ideal masculinity, and this is something that Dave feels that he does not match up to; showing the association of having a larger penis being related to better sexual performance. (“The lunchbox has landed” [The Full Monty]. This stereotype is what allows Barrington to pass the auditon and thus get the job among these men despite the fact that he can neither sing nor dance. He asks her if she were to choose another man, what would this other man be like. As he looks in the mirror saying that black men have better bodies, his wife says to him “I don’t care if you’re bloody black or rainbow coloured, I’m married to you remember?”.
This relationship is further affected by the fact that he has lost his job. Without employment, and without being comfortable with his body, Dave does not represent the stereotype of what a ‘real man’ should be. None of the men do because of their unemployment status. The film shows how he gender criteria is dependent on masculinity traits as the body is seen as an area of surveillance, hence the Chippendales. The show itself represents how masculine and feminine ambiguities exist and this in turn shows the mismatch between gender and sexuality. [Segal: 1997: 191]. The body is given meanings by physical and social relations, not autonomies that are mediated through phallocentric images. The body represents the dependency of the gender order on masculinity and femininity in the sense that it plays a role in the central analysis of an object of manipulation of power.
The movie shows how male domination through the elite allows for the extension of their influence and control over lesser status males. Inter-male dominance produces hierarchies, showing how gender relations are naturalised. The men in the movie are exposed o subjectivity within the framework of universal sexual opposition. [Segal: 1997: 191]
The contrast between the way men identify themselves with one another and the way women do is seen through the men’s conversation. When Dave mentions that people are likely to be critical of their image, Lomper says:“That’s different, we’re blokes”. This goes to show how it almost acceptable for men to be able to ogle at women, but it is disregarded when men are the one being ogled at.
2) What, according to the film, is the dominant masculinity? Dominant femininity?How does the film dislocate, or pull apart these constructions?
The dominant masculinity is defined by the main characters lack there of. These men are representations of the struggles of masculinity and a man’s inability to live up to the social norms put forth by dominant society. The film seeks to pull apart the illusion of male dominance by reveling the realities of male insecurities. Gaz, Dave, Gerald, Horse, Guy and Lomper are each struggling to overcome different social constructions of manhood, yet they come together in sharing the common bond of unemployment and surviving under the pressures of what Jansen describes as “the dream of male mastery.” “ conceptions of themselves as independent agents, acquire masculine values and skills, begin to see themselves as heirs to a male tradition, experience male bonding, and learn to dream the cultural dream of male mastery [Jansen: 2002:185]. In the case of The Full Monty, the male bonding that Jansen is referring to exists in the males perception of failure and his inability to uphold these traditions and their struggle to see themselves as such. The dream has been set into stone within this context however the film focuses on the outcasts of this dream, the men that are seemingly unable to fulfill the cultural dream of male mastery.
Each Character in the film appears to be lacking male dominance in different ways. These men are all insufficient dipictions of a man suffering from socail stratifications along racial, gender, social and economic lines. Economically, they are all unemployed as they come together each day at the Job Center to wallow in there own failures to society and to each other, each one mocking the other as they sit side by side. “social ordering also creates stratifications along racial, gender, social and economic lines and produces specific placements in society, which result in social hierarchies. Anything that goes outside of, or threatens, the existing social order is deemed ‘punishable’” [Artz: 2009: 173]. Gaz cannot afford to pay child support and may loose the legal rights to his son, Gerald can not even bare to tell his wife that has been out of work for over 6 months while Dave is hesitent to take a security job because to him, it would be hypocritical as he is a theif himself. From a racial standpoint, Horse suffers under the social stratification of being a black man. He is “supposed” to have a large penis, yet he does not, therefor he is dying under this pressure as he stands tucked away at a pay phone booth complaining that the penis enlarger he spent his last pennies on is not working: “nothing is getting bigger” [The Full Monty].
The homosexuality complex of dominant masculinity is deconstructed when Guy and Lomper realize that they are attracted to each other as they stumble through a window wearing bright red thongs. The general response to this is not that of homophobia which Jansen descibes as being an essential aspect of the dominant male masculinity. “homophobia and the exclusion of gays and lesbians… continue to be crucial for the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity” [Jansen: 2002: 199]. Dave’s weight causes him severe trauma to the point where he can not get an errection as a result of feeling unsexy, almost like a girl not being able to be turned on because she does not feel sexy. This is a point when the construction is revealed as the reality is that both men and women suffer greatly from being overly critical about them. When put into a sexual context, actual penetration will not work unless both the man and the women are turned on. They both have an equal contribution to making sex work and it is necessary that they both find attraction in both themselves and in the other. “For some boys… these rites are marked by psychic pain and trauma. A boy who is perceived by his peers as running or throwing like a girl is a boy whose entire sense of self and positioning in the world is called into question” [Jansen: 2002: 185). Dave throws like a girl as his body image issues are supposedy, according to Gerald, a “feminist issue.”
This film is a journey in redefining dominant masculinity. The very idea of a striptese among men is something of a taboo in the gender heirarchy however it is necessary for these men to face their fears and go all the way if they are to ever be acknowledged. They were clearly oucasts to an “appropriate social order” yet they were able to re-claim there manhood by literally revieling it. They stood naked before an audience with nothing but there pride at stake. And even that could not be taken away because to get to that point, they had to work through all their insecurities and come to terms with themselves as men and what it means to be a man. The Full Monty is a process of deconstructing the hegemoic masculine heirarchy. In the last moments all hats were off; they were a force of male energy, of male bonding and they were able to not only remake the dream, but inspire others to not be ashamed of the social illusion that is the inability to fulfill the pressures of social heirarchy and dominant masculinity.
3) In the dominant construction of what it means to be male and female, whose interests are being served? What is at stake in these constructions?
The entire gender hierarchy is created by men but maintained by both men and women. According to the film, the dominant male is successful, tall, desirable (well built and fit), strong, dependable and secure in himself. The dominant type of women is an ever changing ideal which exists in opposition to this seemingly stable ideal of masculinity[1]. Jansen explores the relationship of masculinty to femininity by stating that “’Hegemonic masculinity’ is always constructed in relation to various subordinated masculinities as well as in relation to women. The interplay between different forms of masculinity is an important part of how a patriarchal social order works” [Jansen: 2002: 195]. When the women are in the presence of men they are feminine, beautiful, shorter, dependent, and caring. They fulfil the role of the ideal mother and housewife. However, when men are absent or in a vulnerable position, women have the ability to assume a more masculine role. This role reversal cannot be sustained forever because it would upset the gender hierarchy.
The women take their cue about the required type of femininity they are supposed to portray based on the type of masculinity she is acting against and vice versa. For example, when Dave confesses his physical insecurities to his wife and cries (feminine role), she comforts him assuming a more masculine role. In another instance, she tells him to take the security job because they need the money; here she reverts to the typical dependent female who requires a man who can support her financially[2].
The type of society they live in has a great influence over what type of qualities are valued. Jansen clearly lables the effects of the system and how it favors the ‘dominant male’ in saying “the prevailing cultural definitions of masculinity or hegemonic masculinity are essentially ideological constructions that serve the material interests of the dominant, male groups” [Jansen: 2002: 193]. For example, Gaz wants to spend time with his son even though he cannot afford to pay the child support, therefore material security is valued over being a good and involved parent. When Gaz loses his job and therefore his position in the masculine hierarchy, his wife leaves him to find another man who can fulfil her expectations of what a man should be. Her new boyfriend is tall and successful unlike Gaz who is short, thin and unemployed[3]. The whole point of the film is for Gaz to reclaim his position on the hierarchy and to prove that his ability to be a man; reclaiming his manhood through the full monty.
Even though these men do not fit the dominant masculinity, the system is still structured in such a way that their needs (feeling desirable, loved, strong and essential) are still catered to. For example; Lomper returns home, after trying to kill himself, to find his weak mother struggling to climb up the staircase and easily scoops her up in his arms and carries her to her room. This example also displays the ways in which femininity is expected to compliment masculinity[4].
The hierarchy is also structured to support a man’s pride no matter where he is situated and it seems that pride is the most important thing to be gained or lost. Even when the gendered roles are reversed and the man finds himself in a more vulnerable position as a sexual object (when stripping) and the women become almost like sexual predators in response to this, the behaviour of the women affirms the men’s need to feel desired and wanted thus reaffirming his pride and social status. Therefore the interests of the male are always being served.
When their pride and social status is lost, they turn to stripping to make money which in turn will make them relevant again. Lomper trying to kill himself illustrates the importance of pride and feeling like a man. He feels that since he can no longer perform his duties that he is a failure. But he finds himself saved through his new found friendship; it gives him something to live for. The importance of male bonding, the strength and the support that is found here is essential to the construction and maintenance of masculinity. This team ethic affirms ideas that together they can achieve more.[5]
4) What is being challenged? What possibilities are being opened up? What possibilities are being closed down?
What is being challenged?
The Full Monty is chalanging the very nature of social stratification and gender heirarchies with regards to both masculinity and femininity and the social contructions that come with it. Soceity tends to put pressure on the masses of average joes in an attempt to create a general gender order and socail dominance. TFM represents these men as it traces the many struggles of fullfilling these social norms and demonstrating the ability to “be a man”. In ‘The Full Monty’ the challenges being faced are associated with gender, sexuality, class and disability. To begin with, gender stereotypes are challenged. The main charaters decide to put on a stripshow in order to make money and fulfill their role as men. It is ironic that stripping or rather using ones sexuality has mostly been categorised as a female domain (for example, prostitution is mainly identifiable with women in society). However, these men are at a point in their lives where they will do whatever is necessary to regain their socail status as a dominant male in society, of which appears to be lost.
A man’s masculinity is usually linked to his ability to provide. The city of Sheffield is in the middle of industrialisation, a time which is also challenging to men that are unemployed and cannot fulfil their role with regards to providing for their families. Jansen (2002) states that prevailing cultural definitions of masculinity or hegemonic masculinity are essentially ideological constructions that serve the material interest of dominant male groups. What he refers to as hegemonic masculinity allows elite males to extend their influence and control over lesser status males through an inter-male dominance hierarchy. [Jansen: 2002]. This is the challenge faced by Gaz who is located in the ‘under-class’ being unemployed, he is unable to take care of his son, and thus his wife threatens to take full custody of their son because of this inability to fit in to this hegemonic masculinity.
The ‘ideal’ male according to Gieski (2000) is tall, broad-shouldered and strong. The men try to mirror Gieski’s image in creating their own fitness programme that would possibly allow them to better fit in with this image. When Dave asks Gerald about dancing as a way to also fit this image, Gerald’s answer is that:
“Dancers have coordination, skill, timing, fitness and grace. Take a long hard look in the mirror”
The Full Monty is dedicated to these men trying to attain this image and thus become a part of this idealised society. They are each fighting the fact that they all have their flaws, and as Gerald points out to Dave and Gaz,
“He’s fat, you’re thin, and you’re both fucking ugly”.
The dominant challenge is thus accepting their images in an environment where they would need this image in order to make the living they aspire to. They also must face the fact that women (and possibly men) will also look upon them and judge them according to their bodies which is something they do not all realise immeditateley:
Dave: Well, they’re going to be looking at us like that, aren’t they, Eh? I mean, what is next Friday 400 women turn ‘round and say “He’s too fat, he’s too old and he’s a pigeon-chested little tosser.” What happens then, eh?
What possibilities are being opened up?
An opportunity to use male sexuality as a means of making a ‘quick buck’ is an opportunity for the men to once again become providers for their families. The fact that TFM captures a lot of attention in the local community; this further shows an acceptance by the community for men to strip for income. It also shows the breaking of a barrier that once associated this form of making a living with women alone.
What possibilities are being closed down?
Because they are all unemployed during the Industrialisation in Sheffiekd, the men are made are now obsolete, extinct, yesterdays news.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Artz, L. (2009) “The Weather Watchers: Gender, Violence and Social Control” in Steyn, M. and Van Zyl (eds.) The Prize and the Price. p178
Gieske, S: (2000) The Ideal Couple : A question of size. (Chapter 13) pp. 375 – 394. In L. Schiebinger “Feminism & the Body” Oxford Univ. Press.
Jansen, S. C. (2002). Football is more than a game: Masculinity, sport and war. Critical Communication: Power, media, gender & technology. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. (required)
Segal. L (1997) “Sexualities” in K. Woodward (Ed) Identity and Difference: London Sage: p184-224
[1] Gieske, S. (2000) “The Ideal Couple: A Question of Size?” in Schiebinger, L. Feminism and the Body. Oxford University Press. pp 378-381
[2] Artz, L. (2009) “The Weather Watchers: Gender, Violence and Social Control” in Steyn, M. and Van Zyl (eds.) The Prize and the Price. p178
[3] Gieske, S. (2000) “The Ideal Couple” pp387-8
[4] Ibid., p388
[5] Jansen, S. (2002). “Football is more than a game: Masculinity, Sport and War” in Critical Communication Theory: Power, Media, Gender and Technology. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield. p185
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)