12.9.17
So I want to follow on from my *highly* controversial blog
about Elvis, mixed in with a little Daily Show and the ethics of blog-writing.
So: Elvis. I
argued that Elvis’ appropriation of black music and style meant that I didn’t
really understand his masculinity. I argued that my understanding of
masculinity was different from his because he mixed cultures and warped the
pattern of masculinity I’m used to. My understanding of masculinity is obviously 50 odd years later than his, and there has obviously been change and (d)evolution. I focussed on ethnicity/culture as a key part of that transformation, but maybe this hasnt changed. How many prominent male black actors have
been chosen to play the good guy in the last ten years in any Hollywood film? (Note- this is
rhetorical: of course there have been- John Boyega in Star Wars and Detroit, Will
Smith in anything, Morgan Freeman in anything. But when did Samuel Jackson play
the nice guy?) How many black men have been chosen to represent a nation's idea of positive masculinity?
My point was primarily a remark on the changing image of
masculinity. Because there’s no doubt that Elvis was a sex-symbol: TV channels
only filmed him from the waist up because of the overly-provocative shapes his
hips were throwing. But he wore colourful jackets and sang romantic, sweet
songs. And some responded to my argument, saying ‘Elvis didn’t steal, he
popularised’, and ‘He was a sex symbol, it’s just that there are different
types of masculinity’.
To this I have two things to say: first, here is a more
coherent interpretation of cultural interpretation from The Daily Show:
So I don’t necessarily agree with all of this. And that’s
fine. And some folks didn’t necessarily agree with my argument. And that’s
fine. I’m only blogging, for God’s sake. I’m not publishing my new book. And
this is something I want to be clear on: I don’t see myself as authoritative,
original, especially important, summative, or anything particular significant
in this blog.
I make this point on two counts: first, I don’t see blogs as
a place for authoritative writing. I see a blog as a medium for anyone to say
‘so this is what I think’, on the assumption that there are some out there who
disagree. Second, especially due to the subject matter: I am writing on
sexuality and gender, and as a straight male, I don’t have either the most
interesting or worthwhile experiences on either matter. There’s no reason to
listen to my opinion other than because I’ve just shoved it in your face. The
same applies to my play: just because I’ve written it and publicised it
shamelessly for months, doesn’t mean that my voice is a unique one, or an
original one, or one that speaks with particular experience.
So when I claim that ‘the male upbringing is x’ or that
‘black culture is y’, don’t pretend I’m an authority, and don’t pretend I think
I’m an authority either. Cos I’m not, and I don’t think I am. This blog is the
think-out space for the ideology in my play, ‘Hommo’: it’s not a manifesto on
the current human condition. So I welcome criticism, and in that vein, please
don’t think that I see my vantage point as a privileged white man as somehow
unassailable for correction.
Comments
Post a Comment