Since the beginning of time, oppression in some form has existed. Because we, as people, have learned to categorize others, it is in those categories that we make sense of the world around us. However, oppression depends on the situation one is in; the way in which one is categorized can either oppress or give him or her power. It is this power that has a direct connection with representation because it is those who are in power that control the representations of others to our society. These representations then control the way in which we see the world. Therefore, we must ask ourselves, “Are these representations accurate?” If so, then nothing needs to be changed.
However, if not, then there is a major problem. Because these representations permeate every aspect of society, they have immense power; they influence what we see on television and in other visual media, and what we read in books, magazines, and newspapers. They even influence the laws that govern and are made to protect us. But if the representations that we see are inaccurate, then all that is influenced by them should be deemed detrimental and inaccurate as well. I had the opportunity to attend two presentations, and have on the subject of representation. Stuart Hall, Professor Jonathan Tazewell of Kenyon College, and Adrien Katherine Wing, all speak about the dangers of misrepresentation, and shed light on the detrimental effects misrepresentation has had.
In his lecture The Representation of Blacks in the Media, Stuart Hall addresses the politics of representation, breaking down piece by piece the way in which these media representations are mingled into society, while making sure to point out the dangers of misrepresentation, and their effect on the way in which everyone views the world. One of the most important points he made addressed immersion in media representation. He stated, “When one is immersed it is hard to see the problems that a media representation may possess”. Modern culture is bombarded and saturated with visual imagery; visual media is the most popular form of communication to date. However, the problem does not necessarily lie within the images we see on television or in print; an image may have many different meanings. It is not the image itself, but the person viewing the image that gives it meaning.
Therefore, it is the meaning that the person gives which should be interrogated. Whether an image accurately represents the category that it portrays is in question. Because the image is a part of the representation of a category, one must ask, “Is this a reflection or a distortion of reality?” If the image is misrepresentative of its category, one’s understanding of the category will be distorted as well. Thus, the task of choosing images to represent a certain group is a very important and difficult one. The way in which one views the world is contingent upon one’s culture; culture is a system of representation. It gives each category a place in the world based on the category’s representative characteristics. If these characteristics are distorted, then the category’s place in the world based on one’s culture may be distorted or wrong as well. Questioning the images and representations we come across is the only way to combat misrepresentations.
Professor Jonathan Tazewell conducted his lecture on The Black Image in Film. African Americans have been involved in cinema since its inception, and the representations of Blacks in film, whether positive or negative, have become icons, which many people have come to inherently understand. These icons, the Uncle Tom, the Coon, the Tragic Mulatto, the Mammy, and the Black Buck, have become ingrained in cinematic culture, and to the detriment of the Black community, have even seeped into other media as well, creating a trope in society that has been hard to shake off. These icons are a direct result of a historical timeline, starting with the institution of slavery and then another resurgence with the Reconstruction period in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
What is important to remember is that these icons are distortions of reality, many times used in order to justify the injustices inflicted upon Blacks by their oppressors. For example, the Uncle Tom and the Mammy, the two stupid, but very loyal icons of Black slaves, served to show that slaves were content in slavery, and liked nothing more than to take care of the master and his family. The Coon, the stupid, childish slave figure, was used in order to show that Blacks were too stupid to live independently, and therefore could not attain freedom, for their own safety. The Black Buck, a murderous, oversexed, violent icon that arose in the post-reconstruction period, served as a means of instilling fear in Whites, and as a justification for the atrocities inflicted upon both Black men and women during this period. These icons have become so popular and so ingrained that they can be seen in almost every successful movie and music video, even in the present.
An example of this is the historic Academy Awards ceremony of 2002 in which a Black actor and a Black actress won awards for leading roles, an event that before was unprecedented. However, in the case of the actor, who has played lead roles in several very successful movies, it was not until he played the role of Black Buck icon that he was recognized for his acting skill. This is a direct result of the distorted representations of Blacks in this and many other genres, and therefore, should raise a very important question. If an accomplished Black actor can only be recognized as accomplished if he plays a distorted and detrimental representation of Blacks, does it mean then that these representations have become so a part of society that they will never be erased? Furthermore, will Blacks always be oppressed by these faulty representations?
In Adrien Katherine Wing’s introduction to her book, Critical Race Feminism: a Reader, she addresses the above issues with regard to the laws under which women of color, who are victims of a multiple marginalization, are governed. Her field of expertise, dubbed Global Critical Race Feminism, addresses the issues of sexism while including a dialogue about race, a topic that fundamental feminists do not include. This is one of the reasons, says Wing, that many women of color do not affiliate themselves with the feminist movement. They feel that the movement makes them choose to either identify as women of color or as feminists; they cannot be what they are, both. Because this causes the women to neglect a part of themselves, the movement does not include them.
Not only does race marginalize women, but as Wing mentions, religion, ethnicity, age, skin color, and sexual preference can play a role in oppression, depending on the situation. Wing touches on Patricia Hill Collins’ matrix of domination theory, and states that depending on the situation one is in, she may experience a gain or loss of power and agency. Wing proposes an all-inclusive critical dialogue about the discourse on feminism, law, and race theory, because she feels that for women, all of these subjects are intertwined. None of them work independently of each other, and in order to make sure that all discourses are fair, all of these subjects must be taken into account.
The politics of representation depend solely on those in power. An ability to control the representations circulated in society means an ability to give or to take away agency from a group. In order that no group of people is oppressed, we must fight to interrogate each representation placed into mass media, questioning each image rigorously, being careful to find the motives behind each one, and being careful not to interpret an image with a distorted view.
Sources:
Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge, 1991.
Hall, Stuart. Lecture: The Representation of Blacks in the Media. Kenyon College, April, 2002.
Tazewell, Jonathan. Lecture: The Black Image in Film. Kenyon College, April, 2002.
Wing, Adrien Katherine. Critical Race Feminism: a Reader. New York, New York University Press, 1997.
