I recently read Salon's feature piece "First Lady Got Back." Taken aback by the implicit oxymoron between the words, "First Lady" and "Got Back," I sat for hours pondering all that this cluster of words signified. For instance, what does it mean to place "first lady," which designates a "respectable" social position, with "Got Back," a sexist epithet coined by rapper, Sir Mix-a-Lot, in his hot song, "Baby Got Back," in the early 90's? And, what does it mean to inscribe these words on to the body of our very first African American First Lady?
The deployment of both "lady" and "back" can be viewed as problematic. First, discourses about mythologized "ladies" didn't initially include black women. A "lady" was a woman or wife who innately possessed such virtues as delicacy, piety, beauty, politeness and gentleness. Black women, who were not seen as "ladies," "women" or wives, were historically not privy to such designation. Historically speaking, this was a term reserved for white women. And let me just say upfront, this was not necessarily a compliment. As I understand it, "lady" was just as imprisoning as the more derogatory terms used for black female slaves--just in a different way.
Secondly, there is a long history of discourses regarding harmfully reductive views of black women's "backs." Black women have been pathologized and objectified because of their "backs," which, by the way, come in all shapes and sizes just like those of other men and women. Sir Mix-a-Lot's hit song, "Baby Got Back," was only the tip of the iceberg. The cultural chorus regarding black women's bodies, particularly their fragmented backside, had been singing for centuries. Sir Mix-a-Lot simply joined in. Or did he?
To be sure, the mass production of "Baby Got Back" via radio and television took ongoing essentialist discourses about black female hyper-sexuality to new dimensions. The constant reproduction of the gyrating images became a source of social studies on black female sexuality. This was obviously deeply problematic. However, as stereotypically reductive as this song and video was, in its own way, it also celebrated black women's bodies. Sure, this so-called celebration reproduced every stereotype about black female sexuality possible. And, by fetishizing black women's privates, reduced them to mere objects, namely their butts. This was absolutely damaging. However, it also did something else. Through the process of representation (via video imaging), which presented black women's butts as evidence of stereotypical difference (regarding black female sexuality), many black women, including myself, strangely found a sense of pride in our bodies, specifically our butts. Thus, while Sir Mix-a-Lot (and others) reassigned mythical legacies to our behinds, some black women were re-imagining themselves as subjects with beautiful bodies.
However, it is important to realize that this was not everyone's experience. Nor was it likely the experience of those like Sir Mix-a-Lot who commodified black women's bodies for his own use and enjoyment. Nor is it likely the experience of many of those who have joined in the chorus regarding Michelle Obama's butt. Deployment of terms such as "lady" and "back," without some sort of critical analysis is irresponsible at best, particularly in reference to black women. Even if Obama's butt makes us beam with pride every time her beautiful body sashays center stage, we cannot ignore the effects of the obvious "blackening" of the already historically brimming noun, "lady," when placed together in a title like "First Lady Got Back." There are serious implications to consider here, namely the pathologization of our first African American "First Lady."
In short, if we are not more careful in our utilization of language and not more forthright in our criticisms of the language of others, we run the risk of reinforcing historical ideals of black female sexual savagery at the highest level. This is very dangerous. So, if Michelle Obama's body makes us proud, why not shape our enthusiasm with a critique of the status quo, which continues to treat her as an object by fragmenting her to her parts? Obama is a subject--more than a body, and, more than a butt. Inscribing her with words without carefully evaluating their operation first is beyond distressing. It is death dealing. Not just to her, but to all women.
]]>Ironically, the battleground for civil rights based on race and gender remains under social and political occupation. Personhood is still selective and women continue to fight for the right to make their own choices, specifically with regard to reproduction. To be clear, there has been progress, however, not enough. Disturbingly, many still believe (women included) that women's reproductive organs are somehow public and political, not private or personal, matters.
On this note, I will submit that America still has much to learn from Dr. Kings "dream" which has yet to be fully realized. To be sure, King's "dream" was more than the hope for an ideal culture of nice where everyone gets along just for the hell of it. That's definitely not what I am talking about. And, let's be clear, King was nobody's feminist. In fact, it is well documented that King was considerably sexist and patriarchal. So, that's not what I mean either.
To be honest, if alive today I am not exactly sure where King would stand on the issue of reproductive rights. King was a dialectical thinker. Thus, he could be both pro life and choice concomitantly, taking what he needed from one side or the other and rejecting the rest, and thus forcing the rest of us to consider the possible "good" on all sides as well as the inconsistencies of our own positions. It is for this very reason that I think King's "dream" is still useful. However, to get at King's ideas beyond the sound bites, one must be willing to demystify King first.
So, forget holding hands with white people while singing "Kumbaya" (nothing against this, by the way-but this is NOT a means to an end) for a moment. This is a distortion of King's "dream." The demystification process necessitates a look at King's "unsanitized" "dream." The one that was radically complex and intensely biting. The one that provocatively challenged the status quo by holding America accountable for not living up to its democratic ideals of freedom, justice and equality for everyone-ideals which King himself had difficulty living up to in his personal life. The one that was never black and white or static.
King was a Personalist - distinguishing between moral laws and social codes, he believed (in theory at least) dignity, respect, choice, equality and subjectivity were the moral rights of all human beings. However, these rights were stymied by social codes, which led to all sorts of disparities, including but not limited to racial and economic injustice, which King argued were morally evil.
Thus, King's "dream" was a public censure of America's inconsistent and contradictory status quo, not a plea to overlook differences and disparities for the sake of avoiding conflict. His goal was not that of unaccountable justice. In fact, justice necessitated conscientious disobedience to injustice, regardless of the consequences. Unfortunately, in the forty years since King's death, this message has in many ways been obscured.
King's message of radical and absolute justice has been frustratingly exploited and commoditized, sublimated for a dream of simplistic pseudo-camaraderie. Thus, instead of fulfilling the "dream," we have shamefully sabotaged his social and moral legacy. However, if we really believe in Kings "dream" and we want to make it come alive, there is hope (no pun intended). King offers us a guide to realizing a better America-one that courageously calls America out on its myriad shortcomings.
Thus, while King was not a feminist, I imagine if he were alive he would be standing within the trenches with those of us who continue to fight compassionately for radical and absolute justice for all people. Despite what the sound bites say, King's "dream" was fluid. His ideas of justice and equality were constantly broadening and becoming more radical. Maybe I am an idealist, but I believe King would have eventually recognized and critiqued even his own inconsistencies, thus modifying his "dream" to be radically inclusive, regardless of difference.
Perhaps this is my "dream." I actually do believe that King would stand in solidarity with women and men across the globe tomorrow in honor of the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. While he might sit uncomfortably with some aspects of reproductive rights (and would challenge us to do the same), I believe King would view reproductive rights as women's moral right and not a political pact through which civil patriarchy can be enacted. I imagine King might also criticize pro-lifers for fighting for the rights of the unborn but yet aborting the rights of the born through the denial of equal access to education, security, healthcare, etc. However, on the flip side, King might also criticize the use of abortion as a method of birth control. Again, King was a fluid and dialectical thinker-many considerations went into the formation of his ethical judgments, a primary consideration was context.
Overall, I think King would be a supporter of women's right to choose. Choice understood in light of the preference of the choosing subject is a basic condition of freedom. King saw freedom as a moral right. Thus, King was on the side of freedom. However, freedom can be complex. Thus, King would have likely challenged the idea of subjectivity as it relates to the freedom of choice of all subjects involved, thus forcing us to sit with the possible tensions of our choices and one's moral right to choose.
In the end I think King would have upheld women's right to privacy and their right to make decisions about their bodies without interference. However, not without considering context and troubling the waters of each opposing side first. If alive, King would have challenged us to dream beyond our circumstances while forcing America to live up to its ideals of radical and absolute freedom, justice and equality for everyone in spite of difference, of course.
]]>