Impersonation has long been incorporated in cultural celebrations, such as Mardi Gras, and even crossdressing in Carnaval. On the one hand, in Mardi Gras, the general population mocked the ruling class by dressing up as them in a comical way as a one day act of subversion. In this manner, the impersonation of a minority as the ruling class, capitalistic white female could be interpreted as a form of mockery of this very figure. Or in another sense, some Native American cultures (name) crossed-dressed as deities and were venerated for having the ability to see into the worlds of both genders. Perhaps the phenomenon of drag can be interpreted as the inability to reconcile the many moving parts of the identities of these gay black men. On the one hand they are male, but identify with some qualities that are deemed as female. During the years of identity formation, it is probably that they were influenced by the divas of popular culture. Maybe this isn’t an attempt to achieve a certain sex and race ideal, but the mixing of different modes of identification.
Furthermore, Bell-Hooks discusses the film as if it was portrayed to be an all-encompassing view of the minority drag queen population, when in fact, the movie only follows a small portion. Bell-Hooks claims that the ideal is focused on the ruling class white femininity but she over-simplifies the phenomenon of drag by not accounting for the different kinds of, such as high camp, low camp, and glamorous.
I guess I read this from a different perspective. Her (valid in my opinion) criticism about Livingston was that the director portrayed herself as if she had an "unbiased" perspective on the black male gay experience, as if she did not realized that " within this culture the ethnographic conceit of a neutral gaze will always be a white gaze, an unmarked white gaze, one which passes its own perspective as if it were no perspective at all." Butler as well as hooks in essence accuse Livingston of being guilty of claiming such a "neutral gaze" in her film technique when her gaze (for better or for worse) is that of a white lesbian woman.
ReplyDeletehooks has no problem with Livingston "crossing-over", she just wants Livingston (and anyone else "crossing-over") to acknowledge their biais (everyone has them) and take them into account and even try to address them. Such was apparently not the case with Livingston.
From the quote she cited of Livingston, she affirmed that she did not have an authority on the subject and even alluded to the fact that a black director would have a more authentic view. I think a personal bias is inherently impossible to pinpoint to a definitive aspect. But if this is Bell-Hooks' problem with Livingston as a director of a film, the same fault can be found in her authorship since I don't see a statement of her own limitations.
ReplyDeleteA black director may have had a more authentic view. Or not. A black director could also have a more patriarchal/racist perspective. But it's certainly arrogant of Livingston to imply that her view was so "unbiased" that there would have not been a difference between her perspective and a black director's perspective. There is no such a thing as an objective, impartial "external" standpoint (Butler basically stated the same thing). And there is no recognition from Livingston of the way her gaze is in fact a subjective filter (just like a black director's gaze is a different kind of subjective filter). And hooks is not even talking about personal bias. She is talking about institutional bias. Livingston's perspective as a privileged white female is inherently biased just like hook's perspective as a privileged heterosexual is inherently biased (as argued by Butler).
ReplyDeletehooks's problem with Livingston is Butler's problem with hooks. Except hooks did not set out making a movie (or a book) about black male drags and present it as an objective documentary.
@Marie
ReplyDeleteI get it that the documentary form seems to say: this is objective. Maybe there should have been a disclaimer, but then, as you say, there would have to be disclaimers everywhere.
But I did not understand that arrogance part in hooks that Brittany cited. You say:
"But it's certainly arrogant of Livingston to imply that her view was so "unbiased" that there would have not been a difference between her perspective and a black director's perspective."
For me she is saying exactly the opposite, otherwise why would she would have "loved for a black director to have made this film"? I take that wish to mean: if a black director did it, it would have been different, and even better. Seems like she is acknowledging some limitations. I didn't read that quote as arrogant, and that is probably why I was feeling a lost in hooks's argument.
In fact, the only thing that made sense as proof of her arrogance was the simple fact of making a documentary, as far as I can tell.