Although all three of this week’s readings focused on the
implications of postfeminism in our contemporary media landscape, each piece also
touched on postfeminism in relation to race, popular culture, and consumerism. Sarah
Banet-Weiser’s “What’s Your Flava? Race and Postfeminism in Media Culture”
particularly underscores the capitalist imperative of postfeminism, which is
fueled by a focus on individualism and “rhetorics of choice reframed in terms
of consumer purchases,” (pg. 233). An obvious example of the consequences of postfeminism
is the existence and celebration of Sex
and the City, but there are numerous series that followed suit, such as Gossip Girl, or as I will argue in my
presentation this week, Girls. Though
the latter does not blatantly showcase consumerism and consumption in the same
manner as the former two, each show focuses on women who are “empowered” and
use their purchasing power as an enactment of their individuality.
In “For White Girls Only? Postfeminism and the Politics of
Inclusion,” Jess Butler outlines a notion of postfeminism based on narrative,
performance, and/or text. This list follows the work of Rosalind Gill, who
argued that postfeminism “should be conceived of as a sensibility that
characterizes an ever-increasing number of cultural forms,” (pg. 43). I believe
that all six characteristics presented by Butler are showcased in Sex and the City, but in particular a “shift
from sexual objectification to sexual subjectification,” “self-surveillance,
self-discipline, and a makeover paradigm,” the emphasis of “individualism,
choice, and empowerment as the primary route to a women’s independence and
freedom,” and the promotion of “consumerism and the commodification of
difference,” (pg. 44). Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte all find
empowerment in their sexuality, individualism, and imagined consumer power.
Each character is hyper-aware of her appearance and how she is perceived by
others, particularly men. Each woman also uses consumption as a way to enact
individuality and choice.
Particularly in the episode screened in class, ironically
titled “A Woman’s Right to Shoes,” Carrie bases the essence of her womanhood on
a pair of Manolo Blahniks. Outside of the context of the series, it seems that
Carrie’s ability to reduce her individuality and agency to something so trivial
is in part due to her status as a white, upper middle class, heterosexual
woman. Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte are all able to indulge in a seemingly
unruffled postfeminist lifestyle because of their status, which is not afforded
to most women.
Julia, good articulation of the capitalist urge found within postfeminism argued in our readings this week. As Emma notes above, the articles weren't exactly close readings of these shows, more philosophical/historical accounts, so I appreciate your attention to the consumerist emphasis in the "Sex & The City." Part of the show's lack of appeal for me is rooted in the way the characters seem so claustrophobically enslaved to their hipster lifestyle; they way they exude McRobbie's "burden of self-management" is positively suffocating.
ReplyDeleteSince I used my daughter Alex for my post last week I'll invoke her again; my mostly dyed-in-the-wool -- or is it Stitch 'n Bitch? -- third-wave feminist wife (Katie) and I have been hypersensitive to images of women in the media that our young daughter consumes. Something Banet-Weiser doesn't mention about "Dora the Explorer" that has always bothered us is its often complete disregard for the real world (she searches for imaginary things like Chocolate Trees and whatnot); we always preferred that Alex watch "Diego" because she could at least learn about the real animals he rescues while learning Spanish. Surely "Dora"'s disdain for reality is also part of its innate depoliticization?
This point reminds me of a very good show Alex enjoys on PBS called "SciGirls," in which multiracial groups of female tweens and teens solve real world problems by designing science experiments, working in the field, and conversing with experts. It's kind of a non-competitive reality show come to think of it, with very positive role models. It definitely ties into Banet-Weiser's point that PBS tends to embrace the pedagogical (and thus representational) aspects of TV better than some networks; our only complaint is that the token boy character, while merely animated in the pre- and post-show segments, is always presented as a complete dunce; foolish to the point of mockery. Despite this lapse in judgment, it's a rare show that uses the concept of "girl power" to show girls actually working together and making a difference in the world.
Doug and Julia - great points all on how commodification in postfeminism affects character and narrative. Taking Doug's cue, I've actually been thinking about how Banet-Weiser's discussion of Nickelodeon's "multiracial, postfeminist" programming is complicated by its treatment of the show The Legend of Korra.
ReplyDeleteThe Legend of Korra was a preteen show that was a follow up to the hit series Avatar: The Last Airbender. The protagonist of the sequel was Korra, a young WOC. As the creators pointed out, Nickelodeon had no problem with her race, but were concerned about her gender:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/13/150566153/airbender-creators-reclaim-their-world-in-korra
Ultimately, more girls started watching the show than boys, and even though numbers were good, Nickelodeon pulled the show from the network and made it available only online. I think this goes back to Banet-Weiser's early point that Nickelodeon only really needs to *seem* inclusive of gender and race. Shows like Legend of Korra feed that image, though ultimately their business practices show that Nickelodeon is as conservative as the next children's network.
(Don't even get me started on queerness in children's media.)