Warren Blumenfeld responds to some of the attacks he received after posting commentary on the V8 commercial “Personal Trainer.”
—
Maintaining Hegemonic Masculinity
“Did you have your balls removed or are you just retarded?” (Mark)
When I researched and penned my recent commentary for The Good Men Project giving a critical analysis of V8 juice TV commercials, and specifically the one titled “Personal Trainer” in which a white woman punches a black man squarely and firmly on the forehead, I imagined my piece might spark some discussion. I did not, however, foresee the degree of the abusive and threatening backlash.
My analysis centered on a discussion emphasizing that while the commercial portrays a woman in a positive leadership position, its transformational potential has been decimated. We witness in this scenario, instead, a reflection and reification of the unequal and inequitable racial power dynamics emanating from the larger society. I argued, as well, that it at least subliminally, though more likely overtly, represents the racial profiling and violence perpetrated on people of color.
Like Mark in his quote above, “happy infidel” challenged my gender with the comment: “…The other ‘pussywhipped politically correct’ Frankfurt School trainees are at it again.”
By so doing, the person may, indeed, feel “happy” but is no “infidel” in any sense of the word. This respondent serves, rather, as an enforcer of hegemonic masculinity, the underpinning of not only the maintenance, but more importantly, the enhancement of a patriarchal system of power and control. These respondents transformed me into the infidel, the gender trader or heretic, whom they must symbolically annihilate.
“Happy infidel’s” reference to the “Frankfurt School” refers to an interdisciplinary neo-Marxist social critical theory associated, in part, with the Institute for Social Research of Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. This school of inquiry has, indeed, I am very proud to assert, informed my thinking and has, I believe, sharpened my critical consciousness and analytical skills.
The “Online Disinhibition Effect”
The very nature of social communication technologies establish the conditions that make it possible for users to perform and act in cyberspace in ways they might not – at least I hope they would not — ordinarily act in face-to-face interactions with fewer social inhibitions. While navigating virtual words, users may forget that actual people inhabit real space on the other end.
Social communication technologies permit people who engage in cyberabuse to hide in the anonymity of cyberspace. With anonymity, those who cyberabuse do not have to “own” their actions, and they often do not fear being punished or even identified. The technology can also shelter the user from tangible feedback about consequences of one’s actions, which can result in minimized empathy or remorse for the target of the bullying. The user experiences reduced or filtered sensual input, often unable to see or hear the person or people on the other end: no facial expressions signaling emotional output, no ability to see or read body language and voice intonations.
Much of cybertime exists asynchronically, that is, people often do not have to interact in real time, which can add to the disinhibition effect when one does not have to deal with the immediate reactions of others. Cyberspace also transcends distance by virtually shrinking space making geography irrelevant. This feature has advantages and disadvantages. It can bring people closer together, but for those with anti-social motives, the nature of social communication technologies can enable the user to abuse others not only next door, but also on the other side of the planet.
Gate Keepers of Social Orthodoxy
“Well, thanks to the grievance industry personified by the ever-popular, world-famous, and utterly disreputable Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and their ilk, and thanks to divide-and-rule identity politics which encourages each person to think of himself as a member of an aggrieved minority, this is the sort of thing that passes for intelligent thought.” (Brother John)
“When the hell would a black man take direction from a white woman?” (JimmyHat)
This online disinhibition effect, however, cannot fully explain the intense reactions of some of these respondents to my commentary.
Society presents many role models, from very positive and affirming to very negative, biased, aggressive, and destructive. As people observe negative role modeling in the society, at home, in the media, at school, and other social sites, this can result in them taking on prejudicial judgments and aggressive or violent behaviors. Those who bully often fulfill the social function of establishing and reinforcing the norms stemming from their larger society and from social institutions.
Brother John simply dismisses challenges to “racial” power dynamics by discounting the credibility of two reputable civil rights leaders, and JimmyHat seemed not to take the V8 commercial seriously since it did not represent true reality (gender power dynamics). This respondent couldn’t even imagine a black man, or possibly a man of any “race,” following the lead of any woman.
Challenges to Critical Consciousness
“Go out and do something good instead of making everything about something.” (Anonymous)
“If there’s something offensive in this commercial, it’s because you went looking for it. Other than ‘Drink your V-8,’ there’s no other message here; no politics, no pointless identity, nothing. The more skilled we become in finding these ‘subtexts,’ the less skilled we become in actual relationships and in doing things that matter.” (Brother John)
Each year, the American Library Association publishes its list of the most banned and censored books to direct a bright beam of light on the challenges in our country to the free flow of ideas. In addition to some of the common reasons given by would-be book burners, including, for example, “sexual explicit language,” “violence,” “promotion of “homosexuality” and “the occult,” curiously “challenging authority” and “promoting critical thinking” have landed on this dubious list as well.
Essentially, books critically investigating social orthodoxy — the statue quo in terms of hierarchical racial, gender, sexual, age, religious, and other power relationships — stand most at risk for censorship. Some banned classics include The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger, To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee, Beloved and Song of Solomon, by Toni Morrison, Native Son, by Richard Wright, Sons and Lovers, by D. H. Lawrence, The Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, Brideshead Revisited, by Evelyn Waugh, Go Tell It on the Mountain, by James Baldwin, and Leaves of Grass, by Walt Whitman. In fact, librarians at Harvard University once held Whitman’s book of collected poetry in a locked cabinet (“closet”) to be opened only upon presentation of a sighed “permission” letter of a university professor by a student requesting the book.
So I ask, what kinds of messages are we sending as we as a society promote and validate people punching one another in the head to get them to eat (or drink) vegetables, characters like the Priceline “negotiator” strong-arming a hotel manager to lower room rates, famous x-football players telling men how to “guard your manhood” if they “leak a little” — as if our so-called “manhood” depended on our bodily fluids not staining our trousers — restaurant chains like Hooters (as well as Girlie Pancake House whose motto is “They’re Better Stacked”) serving up manifestly large breasts with their entrées, and general ads codifying rigid socially constructed gender roles where girls and women clean and cook and boys and men engage in dangerous activities, work outside the home, and “protect” the womenfolk?
Media both reflect as well as promote social norms while simultaneously creating needs where no real need exists without a public relations ad firm intervening. Do we really need to spray our rugs and furniture with fabric freshener? Do we really need to be given 50 different options of dishwashing liquid or laundry soap? And do we really need to hear from the General Motors Corporation that it is far more important to drive a Cadillac than to relax and smell the roses?
“Why do we work so hard? For what? For this (showing a large swimming pool in the back yard)? For stuff? Other countries, they work, they stroll home, they stop by the cafe, they take August off. Off! Why aren’t you like that? Why aren’t we like that? Because we’re crazy, driven, hard-working believers, that’s why.”
Actually, living life to the fullest and smelling the roses, and the coffee, suits me fine. I certainly don’t need nor do I want a pricy “luxury” automobile. And I prefer to critically examine my social environment, for to paraphrase the old truism, “If we don’t stand for (critically investigate) something, we will fall for anything.”
—
Photo: RebeccaBarray/Flicker
Just recall the V8 slap, branded by the company itself. This was from the early commercials of V8 where a person slaps themselves or another person on the forehead to say “I could have had a V8!” I can understand where there may be some wonder if there is a subliminal message; afterall, the commercial industry is steeped in it. However, could it be the commercial industry shining a light? Spike Lee is amazing at this – not providing any answers and buttoning up a story but taking a slice of life and saying ‘hey take a look at this… Read more »
I left a comment here yesterday, with a counter point to your thesis. I see you took it down. I guess any counter views to your article are not acceptable. If you’re named Gerald and agree with you, your comment stays. If not, it doesn’t. Warren, I suggest you do some deep self evaluating – ask yourself “why am I afraid of an opposing view?” Hmmmm.
I couldn’t agree more, Warren. Furthermore, posting vitriol anonymously is the epitome of cowardice.
Thank you Gerald.