Week 8 Reading Response – Eric D. Roest
In her presentation on the artist known as M. I. A., Alexis uses a quote from Bill Nichols, a segment of which is: “The Other (woman, native, minority) rarely functions as a participant in or a creator of a system of meanings, including a narrative structure of their own devising. Hierarchy and control still fall on the side of the dominant culture that has fabricated the image of otherness in the first place.” This very issue is highlighted in the article “Immigration, Authorship, Censorship, and Terrorism” by Candice Haddad, particularly in her use of Pitchfork interviews with M.I.A., where she (M.I.A.) confronts her interviewer with the repeated misrepresentations and misappropriation of credit for her work.
“M.I.A. : Yesterday I read like five magazines in the airplane…and three out of five magazines said “Diplo: the mastermind behind M.I.A.’s politics!” And I was wondering, does that stem from {Pitchfork}? …I just find it a bit upsetting and kind of insulting that I can’t have any ideas on my own because I’m a female or that people from undeveloped countries can’t have ideas of their own unless it’s backed up by someone who’s blond-haired and blue-eyed.”, and later in the interview she states, “And that’s what this albums’ about. It’s filling in the bridge and the gap so that somebody in Liberia can articulate exactly what they want to say without having this middle-man person who has to be from the first world.” (pg. 290-291) Her use of the term: middle-man astutely points out the role that Pitchfork (and all of the media) plays, as arbiters or priests of cool, much like the very priesthood of the church, who say “come to us if you want to know God”, the media (ie: Pitchfork) implicitly states “Come to us if you want to know what is cool, worthwhile, and true.”
Although she articulates these issues well, M.I.A. is still not free from the effects of attempting to engage the dominant mass/media culture of the U.S. On her own terms, point in case is the incident during half-time at the Super Bowl in which she flipped off the camera (according to her in response to the group of teenage black girls wearing cheerleader outfits and spreading their legs on national television) and was sued (successfully) for $6 million. As Nichol’s would have it: “ Hierarchy and control still fall on the side of the dominant culture that has fabricated the image of otherness in the first place.” Was she naive in (perhaps) thinking that she could change the prevalent culture by attempting to point out it’s absurdity? Especially during half-time of the Super Bowl, one of the most watched events broadcast. Is it possible for any one individual to remain authentic and retain true authorship while participating in mass cultural enterprises?
Another point brought up in the article on M.I.A. As well as in a previous reading is that of hybridity.
In his article Beyond Third Cinema: the aesthetics of hybridity, Robert Stam speaks of the “valorization of hybridity”, or a process of inversion, wherein what was previously (by the dominant colonial powers) viewed as negative gets raised up and praised as a source of empowerment and pride. In the case of M.I.A. (and many other multicultural or “outsider” artists), this valorization of hybridity comes from the dominant powers of the western media. Branding this outsider as cool (and thereby commidifying them), and worthy of attention based on their “otherness”. A sort of reversal of the reversal happens as what was formerly unknown becomes co-opted, absorbed and transformed into mainstream culture, as happened with punk rock, and hip-hop, becoming fashion based commodities, available to all at the local mall.
