While reading the chapter “Differences” in Nealon and Giroux’s Theory To
olbox, I was struck by the passage on so-called “universal” themes, particularly the comment “the supposedly “universal” subject has a very specific gender: masculine” (179). I was immediately reminded of the 2016 Oscars controversy, which erupted after the release of the Oscars nominations. From the disproportionate amount of films focusing on the struggles of white men that the Academy picked, one would think that “high art” is primarily concerned with issues that revolve around men. Is that really an incorrect assumption? Of the eight films up for Best Picture, five are focused on such masculine struggles as surviving alone on Mars, getting revenge, and corruption on Wall Street. Even more prominently, these are all framed as particularly white struggles.
However, this lack of diversity does not stem solely from the Academy, and is in fact evidence of the staggering lack of diversity in Hollywood. There were plenty of critically-acclaimed films that featured nonwhite actors and storylines, as the Screen Actors Guild Awards showed last night. No, this slate of nominations shows the cultural acceptance of white men’s struggles as “universal” and representative of the general populace. With more diverse films and television, perhaps we can learn to understand stories told from other points of view, so we can “highlight the negotiation of contextual differences that is interpretation itself” (Nealon and Giroux 177).
This controversy is not a matter of political correctness gone wild; this is an example of people paying attention and being actively critical of the media they consume. We are not beyond the days of sexism and racism, but we can confront these insidious institutions by being more critical of media, from literary texts to popular movies.
I didn’t watch the Oscars, but I heard all about the lack of minority representation. I fully agree with you that we are not beyond the days of racism and sexism. I think Franco once mentioned on the first day of class that there was a “white norm” in popular literary fantasy fiction. As someone who loves a good fantasy adventure, I haven’t come across enough fantasy books that don’t prove his claim wrong. Also, as someone who wants to write fantasy fiction, I do feel that there should be more of a representation of minorities within the genre, beyond the role of “sidekicks” or supporting characters.
I’m glad you brought up this year’s Oscars diversity controversy in this post. I feel like it’s something that gets talked about to some degree or another every year, but this season’s “whitewashed” nominee ballot seems to have brought on an even greater firestorm than years past. I read somewhere that the only roles played by African American actors to be nominated in the past were those in which they portrayed maids, slaves, and other submissive, lower-status characters. If the Oscars acknowledges the “universal” narrative of the white man to be that of the hero, then what does that mean for the so-called universal experience of the African American? If pop culture, especially films praised as the highest art in the cinema world, continues to put races/minorities in a box the way it has, then we have no choice but to recognize race as a difference that can’t really be ignored, especially when discussing what kinds of experiences we deem universal.
This is a great post about the “differences” that we sometimes blindly accept, and I love that you related this to something current and very important. You’re completely right when you say this is not a case of “political correctness gone wild”. It’s not being politically correct to point out that the Oscars is once again representing the stories of only white males. I guess this goes back to what we decide as a narrative or story worthy of being chosen, as we talked about very early in the class. Why is it that only some people (mostly white males) represented over females or African Americans? Who gets to decide this? I guess my bigger question is why other people decide that there is no reason to get upset over something like this. Of course people should get upset that they aren’t represented in the media that seems to shape the world. I really enjoy the way you articulate the importance of seeing “differences” and not just accepting them at face value. I think this Saturday Night Live skit is a perfect satire on exactly what you feel, and I’ll live you with that.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospx7tXWYbI (Sorry that you have to copy and paste in separate tab)
Between the success of “Birth of a Nation” at the Sundance Film Festival and the outrageously popular new Star Wars film, we’ve seen that art often prospers when casts and plots are allowed to represent more than just whiteness. You’re absolutely right to point out the historical implication of what is considered universal in nature – the male ego. Political correctness used to describe (from a black woman whose work was radical in nature, see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toni_Cade_Bambara) a tendency towards ideological purity among leftists, a serious discourse. Now it’s been appropriated by pundits, racists, and whiny privileged folk to ironically critique “insensitivity” by minorities. We should recognize each other’s differences, and realize that humanity is made a more beautiful mosaic for it. I doubt without revolution in the culture and economy, will our art, the “high brow” stuff put down in film and literary canon, be enriched thusly.
This was an interesting post because it pertains to pop culture, which we often see as progressive and typically up to date with modern, young perspectives. In this case, the ballot what white washed and skewed so that it did not represent black actors or actresses. This enormous representation of pop culture of film showcased how racism lives on subliminally. While I agree that the misrepresentation of our country is undoubtedly racism, it also correlates to the roles played by whites vs. african americans in cinema, as mentioned above. While it is certainly not always the case that blacks play lower privileged characters, often slaves or servants, it is true that many times they do. This is not racism, in fact it is anti-racism if it promotes the ideology that it was bad, as modern films do. Inversely, white males often play roles of superiority, weather it be in the old south or on Wall Street. While the screen may seem white washed or racist, the reality is that it is historically accurate. Wall street was filled with white males, and they were to blame for the crash. If black men or women dominated Wall Street the film would not be historically accurate. While this leaves an odd imbalance for what actors and actresses can obtain certain important roles, it is histories own doing.
I appreciate it when you write that “This controversy is not a matter of political correctness gone wild; this is an example of people paying attention and being actively critical of the media they consume. We are not beyond the days of sexism and racism, but we can confront these insidious institutions by being more critical of media, from literary texts to popular movies.” That distinction between political correctness gone wild and a sense of care when it comes to matters of media, representation, and difference productively re-frames a later debate on this blog related to PC attitudes.