Leaning to the Left (but only kinda looking left)

To begin, I want to raise a question. Why is it that any time an anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, or anti-consumerist theme is being discussed, that it immediately gets referred to as ‘Marxist’? There are numerous ways of approaching of approaching such an issue, and many are not even remotely Marxist; environmentalism, conservationism, syndicalism, and anarchism all come to mind. Yet, Marx is resurrected from the grave once again for whatever reason, even though his ideas no longer full describe the type of capitalism today (Marx lived and wrote of the forming industrial capitalism of the 1800’s, whereas we live in a combination of corporate, financial, global and cultural capitalism, all of which have very unique features that Marx did not even begin to guess at.) Even the use of “bourgeois” is awkward, as it implies a dichotomy of classes, the upper-class (capitalist) and the lower-class (worker or proletariat). But, our society has a thriving middle class that is a mixture of capitalist businessmen and skilled workers. So, by referring to the bourgeois, the corresponding view is skewed with such bias that misses the bigger problems in today’s society is nearly inevitable. At best, you can receive a partial answer or interpretation by using the outdated Marxist lens to examine an issue. Really, all I want is for these authors to take their time in analyzing potentially leftist, progressive, or extremist concepts and themes. By not doing so, they are not only jumping to (usually) false conclusions, but also making it difficult for me to take them too seriously.

Take, for instance, Phillipa Gates’s article “The Man’s Film: Woo and the Pleasures of Male Melodrama”. Gates asserts, “That through moments of excess a ‘reading against the grain’ of the [film’s] text is possible, a reading that will reveal meanings opposite to those that are apparent at the surface of the text…these oppositional meanings are Marxist and/or feminist in reaction against the capitalist and/or patriarchal agenda of Western film and society.” (Gates, page 61).  However, Gates lines out an argument that Woo’s films are not feminist in this way. “The emphasis of the contradictions exposed in the films of the women’s genres are usually concerned with gender, family, and the role of women in a patriarchal society, whereas the contradictions exposed in Woo’s films are those which exist between society and the masculinity of the hero. In each film there is a juxtaposition of the apparent hypermasculinity at the surface of the text and the suggestions of vulnerability, emasculation, and homoeroticism revealed through moments of melodramatic excess.” (Gates, page 62) Without delving into whether or not I think that this “reading against the grain” methodology is legitimate or effective for displaying progressive ideals, I feel it is necessary to point out how a more careful examination of feminism in its present day form makes this argument a moot point. By examining masculinity and gender roles and then supposedly asserting a counter theme to what is currently found in society, you are still working within a feministic frame. Modern day feminism is all about fighting gender roles and showing how masculinity and femininity is an illusionary social construct that not only makes no sense, but is also detrimental to those who force themselves into these perceived gender paradigms. It may not be as overt and obvious to the viewer as feminist, but it is. Woo is indirectly a feminist film maker by showing how men can and must be feminine.

                Lisa Oldham Stores and Michael Hoover’s article “Whose Better Tomorrow” made a similar, yet still very different mistake by not thoroughly examining progressive concepts. They set up a basic framework of anti-capitalism themes that can be found in Woo’s films. However, Stores and Hoover don’t fully delve into the theme. Instead, they leave it at quoting Marx a few times after making parallel comparisons between movie characters and various capitalistic roles. As they said on pages 45 and 46, “Shing will be the vampire-capitalist, who ‘only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.’ Ho and Mark represent loyal employees, the physical labor part of the operation, but also set apart from other triads.” If this was examined further, it would be apparent that roles found in capitalism is not so simple, and that the roles laid out here (and the roles that could potentially be derived by a closer examination of the film and of society) are not close to Marxism or many traditionally examined alternative economic theories. Although the film could easily be seen as a literal example of the corruption power of money and power (a viewpoint that is not necessarily anti-capitalist) or as a metaphor for the unseen violence inherent in capitalism and capitalist societies, the film could just as easily be viewed as the glorification of violence and capitalism. Without fully examining what kind of power relationships and capitalist assertions are being  made on a much more complex, theoretical level, it is difficult to know what the movie is arguing, if it is successfully arguing that message or theme,  and it the message or theme is really applicable in modern society, or if it is grossly outdated and flawed.

A Response That Accidentally Turned into a Blossay

First off, allow me to offer my apologies for the lateness of this response. The reading “Bruce Lee’s Fictional Models of Masculinity” by Jachinson W. Chan was dense and thought provoking and it has taken some time for me to figure out how to appropriately respond to it. Masculinity and femininity are difficult subjects to approach, and one must be incredibly careful when discussing them, as are people are quick to jump to conclusion and be unnecessarily offended.

                To me, the most pressing matter in Chan’s article is introduced in the title itself. Bruce Lee’s version of masculinity is derived not from Bruce Lee himself, but his fictional characters. This is problematic for a few reasons. To begin, it implies that individuals are gathering their own information on what it means to be a man or to be masculine not from the real world, but from fictional, non-existent characters. It seems foolish to look to something that is not real for something so important (or at least seemingly so) to the self. Yet, that is entirely the case, and not just for Asian American men looking for a way to be masculine in American culture. It is true for teenage girls of all races. It is true for parents looking for answers on how to raise their kids. It is true for young couples trying to figure out how to form a healthy and functioning relationship, and how and when to end that relationship. All of these demographics (for the most part) seek out answers through the media, which is not only fictional, but rarely mirrors how the real world actually functions. There is actually a great study on how individuals have higher expectations of relationships after watching a romance movie or even a romantic comedy. As a result, relationships of these individuals tend to be shorter and less satisfying, and are more likely to believe that their significant other should be able to ‘read their mind’ and ‘just know what they want’. The point is, I don’t think that it is a good idea AT ALL for Asian American men (ar anyone for that matter) to be seeking out a place in American culture by looking for role models in fictional medium.

                Second, fictional characters are, at best, one-dimensional caricatures of real life demographics, and at worst, completely detached from reality. The implicit narrowness of fictional characters prevents individuals from ever being able understand a character on a deeper level without investing personal experience or other outside assumptions into the movie. It doesn't matter how well developed a character’s past is, it is still sparse in comparison to a real human being. The same can be said of a character’s motivations and emotions. Take, for instance, when we were looking at the screenshot of Chiao Mei in Thursday’s class. The interpretation of her gaze by the class varied, but that is exactly the point. Each person was bringing in outside factors while analyzing her face. Even while moving around the room, the impression of Chiao Mei changed. Personally, when I looked at Chiao Mei, I saw an empty person; a flat character that can be filled with whatever I wanted her to be. I could see the potential of each suggestion, whether the suggestion was that her gaze was lustful, studying, or amusement. No one interpretation is less valid than and other interpretation. So, how is that problematic? The problem is that when a person is looking at a one-dimensional character for answers like what masculinity is, they are coming up with a perverted and diluted version of what they themselves would answer if they would seriously reflect on the question on their own.

                The biggest issue I have with Chan’s article, and to a larger extent society, is the underlying assumption that masculinity must be intertwined with violence in some way for it to be culturally acceptable, and that homosexuality and masculinity cannot mix. I actually don’t know where to begin with how absolutely ridiculous that is. I have no interest in power or violence. Does that mean I  cannot be a man? And if I embrace violence and power, I may become a better man, but I would be a far worse human. How can we as a society progress if we are continually obsessed with forcing ourselves into the dichotomy of masculine or feminine? It is little wonder that the world is such a mess with every biological male vehemently pursuing the abstract concept of masculinity via the roads of power and violence. It is my belief that the focus of the individual should not be to become a better “man” or a better “woman”, but that the focus should instead be on becoming a better human being.