 |
Lenny Bruce, raising his own eyebrow,
no doubt in a call-and-response
routine with the many he raised... |
On the heels of Thursday's discussion about the Soviet Stilyaga's blue suede shoes, we hop over the ocean this Tuesday to meet his American counterpart in hip--the beatnik, jazz man, and the other faces in the crowd of cool cats who congregate in the seedier sections of major cities, like New York's East Village and San Francisco's North Beach. As you read Norman Mailer's seminal essay about hipster psychology, race, and the atomic age--a piece at once perspicacious and highly problematic--think back to our previous readings, and the ways they dealt differently with many of the same themes. Likewise for Lenny Bruce, who needs no introduction other than a name before he starts 'talking dirty and influencing you,' to paraphrase the title of one of his books.
For those of you who have watched Mad Men before Thursday's class, you may recognize Bruce as a smaller point of inspiration (beside Rat Packer Joey Bishop) for the show's Jewish comedian Jimmy Barrett. I mention this, and footnote Mailer's own downplayed Jewish background, because Jewish identity and Anti-Semitism are major if mostly unarticulated questions of the Cold War in the US and USSR. I encourage you to start thinking more systematically in this direction, perhaps starting with your discussion questions.
Listening to Lenny Bruce's audio recordings reminded me of the film Stranger Than Paradise (made in the 1980s by Jarmusch). The film centers around a jewish Hungarian immigrant who has moved to NYC and is charged with the task of taking care of his younger female cousin on her first visit to the states. Although the content is not as vulgar as Bruce's recordings, the film challenges the viewer in similar ways. Stranger Than Paradise is shot in black and white, scenes are long and asymmetrical, there are few dialogues, and the plot is far more disjointed than in more popular "hollywood" films. In order to enjoy the film, one must first confront the unusual hipsterness that is laid in front of them. Bruce's "hipsterness" catches the audience off guard with inappropriate language and imagery. Since both Bruce and the main characters in Stranger Than Paradise are Jewish, how can we connect this identity with the identity of the hipster? Are the ways in which hipsters remove themselves from mainstream society related to the ways in which Jews (or even African Americans) were forcibly barred from mainstream society?
ReplyDeleteI'm particularly interested in drawing comparisons between Mailer and Burroughs. How might Queer embody the psychopathic as delineated in "The White Negro," (consider both the content and form of the novel). How do these two texts imagine sexuality, and how/why does this formulation of sexuality depend on a racialized Other? How might we understand the politics of desire in these works as it pertains to the Cold War and national identity?
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that in the hipster movement, in order to deal with one's inevitable fate of death one would "divorce itself from society" and "exist without roots". I found this very interesting because so often when faced with death one turns to religion, a very cultural and rooted thing, to feel as though one has some sort of control over one's demise. The concept of living in the now and exploring all of oneself, including the "psychopathic" tendencies is completely opposite the belief in living morally and living for the afterlife. I found the anti-religious approach to inevitable death intriguing and I wonder how this radically different approach to life and death has shaped our present day thoughts on death and morality.
ReplyDeleteI really hope this makes sense, I am dog tired.
Deletein other words, beat.
Delete(when she's tired your professor can't resist a pun.)
I find it interesting that, in order for a cool cat to be cool, he had to be "black" or at least appropriate part of black culture (jazz). Cool was the counter-culture, the anti-mainstream, the subversive. To an extent, we see this today with rap. Because of the history of oppression in the United States, "black" is, was, and will most most likely continue to be counterculture. But if the white youth (particularly, the rich, white, male youth) are appropriating this "othered" culture, are they not acting as oppressors? The hipster may be trying to flee the dominant society, but as he flees does he not steal another man's culture? If so, how does this play out and what are the consequences? Does this even make sense?
ReplyDeleteI guess the underlying question is where the boundaries are drawn between the admiration for creative work (jazz, or perhaps rap), admiration for jazz culture or rap culture ("being into a scene"), and a claim to that culture on one's own identity. What differentiates influence from appropriation? Also, more generally, can we say that a creative form can and only must belong to one, "othered"culture? What are possible issues that arise from this limiting distinction?
DeleteThe line is pretty clear in my opinion. Listening to rap, supporting Black artists by buying their albums and going to their shows is appreciation. Macklemore and Miley Cyrus - that's appropriation. When the oppressors adopt the language, style, music, ect., of the oppressed - that's cultural appropriation. When they benefit from it, that's even worse. Creative work by Black people is still used against Black people. Rap is bad and sexist and violent...unless a white person is rapping. Twerking is dirty and obnoxious, unless a white person is doing it. AAVE is laughable and "stupid," unless a white person is using it. The boundaries are pretty clear - and if anyone is ever unsure of the boundaries, all they need to do is listen to the voices of the oppressed, and they will tell you. It's not "limiting" in any way. That's like saying it's limiting if you paint a gorgeous picture and someone bigger and stronger wrestles it away from you and tells you it sucks and then goes on to sell it for a bunch of money and claim they painted it. The popularity of henna as an art form in the United States is "influence" or appreciation, wearing a bindi because you're "spiritual" is appropriation. It's really not actually a difficult line to understand at all. You just have to examine your own privilege in relation to the culture you're appreciating or appropriating, and the significance of what you're appreciating/appropriating.
DeleteHow are the American and Soviet hipsters different in terms of visibility? Are hipsters satisfied with laying low in the "underworld" or do they seek more publicity? Is a hipster still a hipster if they are not recognized as such? In other words, as hipsters rely on the notion of difference, what happens if they are not differentiated from an other?
ReplyDeleteAlso, if hipsters are underground, what does this mean for their ability to promote social change? Do hipsters march in the street like the students in "I Am Cuba"?
Norman Mailer describes the hipster in a very...different way. "...an infant turned inside out...trying to get back at the conformists by lying low...tempting to describe the hipster in psychiatric terms as infantile." Of course, this article was written in the 1950s, but to what degree is his description accurate of today's "hipster?" Mailer even goes as far to analyze whether or not a hipster could be considered a "philosophical psychopath." Throughout this analysis, he makes a few contrasts between the "bad and desire." Could these references somehow tie in to our other readings?
ReplyDeleteAlso, on a side note, anyone else notice the grammar errors in his writing?
Through the definition of the hipster as the psychopath, with the emphasis on existentialist thought, wouldn’t we all--to an extent--be hipster? Take, for example, Anthony Burns, a man who lives his life without change or originality. Since hipsterness focuses on the existentialism in psychopathy, would Anthony Burns indeed be part hipster through his defiance of social standards by indulging in homoerotic sado-masochism? Which begs the question, what makes a hipster truly a hipster? Is it a conscious partaking in a widespread movement, or something that just happens?
ReplyDeleteIn "The White Negro," it's explained that the hipster was formed as a sort of defense mechanism of the cruelties of society and the inevitability of death: "It is on this bleak scene that a phenomenon has appeared: the American existentialist -- the hipster, the man who knows that if our collective condition to live with instant death by atomic war, relatively quick death by the State as l'univers concentrationnaire, or with a slow death by conformity with every creative and rebellious instinct stifled... the only life-giving answer is to accept the terms of death, to live with death as immediate danger, to divorce oneself from society, to exist without roots, to set out on that uncharted journey into the rebellious imperatives of the self." If this is true of the modern American hipster, what are the substantial cultural events that have created the withdrawal from society by such people?
ReplyDeleteI'm not actually sure where this post should go.. but here goes! After watching the two Mad Men episodes, reading the Frank O'Hara poems and reading the magazine article on the swift decline of the American male, I think that it is only appropriate to talk about gender, masculinity and sexuality in today's class. The most prominent example I can think of is in the role of the female in the workplace. Most of the females in Draper's office are secretaries, and they have very little power in the office. However, there is one woman, Peggy, who has somehow managed to move from a secretary's position to one with decision making questions and real sway. She is on a team as the only female, and is constantly forced to deal with the sexist remarks that her co-workers are saying.
ReplyDeleteThis brings up the idea of the "token" woman (or black person, or disabled person). This concept is that having one member of the minority (all though women aren't really minorities, as pointed out in the magazine article), in the workplace or friend group in order to look like you have a diverse array of opinions. How do the men in her group demoralize Peggy and make her ideas seem unimportant? Finally, has the role of the female in the workplace shifted to a power role? If so, is it possible for women to maintain their femininity while still being in a place of elite power?
I love your questions, and want to add one regarding Peggy. In the first Mad Men episode, when Peggy and the other men are waiting for Don in a meeting, the men belittle her and treat her like a secretary even though she's supposedly their equal. When she leaves the office to look for Don, she then verbally abuses and intimidates a secretary, Lois. I'm not sure how to frame this as a question, but I'm thinking about women tearing women down when they achieve marginally more power, the whole idea of "sisterhood" vs. ambition, and passing abuse downwards along the hierarchy. We see a lot of that with Peggy in that scene.
DeleteIn "The Decline of the American Man," we see several examples of double standards of genders. There is astonishment over the idea that both genders should be satisfied after sex as well as over the fact that women are developing the means to decide against conceiving children (although the article says, in its least sexist sentence, that the decision to conceive children should be a joint one). We can read this article today and laugh at the blatant sexism, but the truth is, many people still think like this. People still fear the idea of a family being raised by a homosexual couple, citing a similar idea to that of Dr. Milton J. E. Senn on page 14 that, "Boys, to grow into masculine men, need to see what masculinity is like. They are thwarted if there is no male figure around and if the female takes over." So, how far have we really come? What other parallels can we draw between the sexism of this article and today's gender stereotypes and double standards?
ReplyDeleteTalking about gender and Mad Men (I had never seen the show before and had to do a little research and watched other episodes). One of the most clearly defined themes involves sexism. Apparent from the episodes assigned and the ones I watched, Mad Men creates this idea that power comes from the male. For example, in "For Those Who Think Young," Don suggests the exploitation of women to advertise Mohawk Airlines. Peggy was an interesting character as she seems to be the only woman working in a position of higher importance than other women. She still seems to not receive equal treatment from the men. In general, she is not a dominating character. However, in "For Those Who Think Young," there is a moment when a female worker, Peggy displays dominance over another female coworker as she scolds the coworker. Why is there this display of the higher power from Peggy? What might this imply about her role?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am extremely uncomfortable "supporting" anything Mailer wrote in his essay, "complimentary" or not, due to the blatantly racist, fetishizing nature of it, I do think he is correct in this idea. I don't think Mailer and I necessarily share the same concept of what this superiority entails, however. Whether it's music, food, fashion, or language, white people have been appropriating Black culture in the United States forever. It is clear from the degree to which we steal Black culture that it is superior. Unfortunately, despite the apparent superiority, Black people and other People of Color are still not "equal." Their culture gets appropriated and whitewashed for mass consumption. Black culture may be superior, but racism is still alive and well. White people benefit from the superiority of Black culture while still using it against Black people themselves.
ReplyDelete