The Politics of Grief

Antonin_Scalia_2010

 
What can political science tell us about grief? Antonin Scalia’s death provoked a mixture of disgust and admiration that was covered extensively by American and international news media.

Some progressives were ready to list Scalia’s faults and argue that, even though dead, the man needed to be held accountable. Others, including some leftists, argued that condemning Scalia’s politics was disrespectful and tasteless. Death became a de-politicizing force that elevated Scalia above contestation, an ideological position that has historic support from philosophers like Hannah Arendt, who once argued that, “what makes a man a political being is his faculty of action.” The argument might go that Scalia, now deprived of his ability to enact politics in any space that could be called ‘the public sphere,’ had become a depoliticized object. But this position obscures how dead bodies are politically managed, with some dead bodies used to advance national identity and others being omitted from civic life. Death and grief aren’t apolitical.

Literary texts, at least, suggest that mourning can be a form of political expression. Texts like Antigone and the character of Ophelia from Hamlet illustrate how grief can either consolidate or subvert state power. When President Obama visited Scalia’s body “to pay his respects”, he also reinforced the idea that grief could be managed through public practice. But is publicizing grief necessarily wrong? I don’t think so, for reasons I’ll explain below, but there are certainly some articulations of grief that should make us wary.

Judith Butler, for example, warns her readers that highly ritualized styles of mourning, often supported by state and media, can produce moments where “critical modes of questioning are drowned out.” Butler, in particular, is interested in how grief for certain bodies can meet “social and cultural force of prohibition,” a conclusion she has reached by examining LGBTQ relationships and the institutional barriers that prevent couples from engaging in certain rituals of mourning. Think of hospital visitation rights, where a seemingly mundane waiting room becomes the space where grief is managed by bureaucratic processes. Certain persons become the recipients of national mourning, with all the material support this entails, and others have their grief consigned to the margins of society through legalistic manoeuvring.

We can extend these examples to world politics. Witness how grief is often used to advance nation-building projects and manage international conflict. Children, in particular, often figure as natural innocents and become strategic assets that are used to mobilize outrage. Take the death of Mohammed al-Durrah in 2000, a Palestinian child who was filmed hiding from Israeli gunfire with his father. His mother described his death as a sacrifice “for our homeland, for Palestine.” A PLO spokesperson told the BBC that the international community shouldn’t be surprised when children participate in spontaneous uprisings when “from womb to tomb, we are condemned to sub-human living conditions.” The Israeli Defence Force similarly condemned Mohammed’s death, but then blamed Palestinian militants, arguing that the “cynical use” of “innocent children” as human shields resulted in Mohammad’s death.

Certain deaths cultivate outrage, while others are met with shrugs. When Ben Norton asked last week, “[d]o French lives matter more?” he was contrasting Western rage at the ISIS attacks in Paris with the silence on attacks in Iraq, the deadliest the country has seen this year. Answering his own question, Norton writes: “The responses — or lack thereof — from Western media outlets, governments, and citizens makes their answer obvious.” In this moment, grief could have acted as a critical intervention to the way conflict in the Middle East is usually understood.

Alternatively, we see how the grief surrounding Alan Kurdi, whose death prompted international rage, pressured the EU into adopting a more favourable stance on refugee policy, indicating that public grief has the potential to, as David McIvor writes, cultivate “ethical dispositions towards human vulnerability that would make possible a less-violent politics.” Perhaps for this reason I’m hesitant to condemn public rituals of grief, since these rituals can produce grassroots movement. But the question of whose pain is validated has an answer rooted in the asymmetries of political power.

These are only a few examples that illustrate how grief is legitimized through political ritual. Mohammad al-Durrah’s body, for example, became a stage upon which two competing nation-building visions were articulated. Alan Kurdi underwent the same treatment, and the nearly universal outpouring of grief towards his death was then later subverted when Charlie Hebedo portrayed him as an Abuser-in-the-Making on its front cover. The message was clear: the humanitarian impulse towards refugee children was misplaced, since they’d grow up to be misogynists anyway. Scalia now faces similar treatment, with various factions competing to dominate the narrative that gives meaning to his death.
I’m not convinced that dead people can remain apolitical, or that being ‘apolitical,’ (translation: being silent) is even desirable. Attempts to dampen criticism about Scalia can reinforce an ‘official’ American identity, one that’s apparently dependent on conservatism in the judicial branch. Certainly, the Republican presidential nominees have used Scalia’s status as a “legal giant,” to quote Ted Cruz, to push forward their ideas about what America should be. At first, these words seem courteous and tasteful and so haven’t attracted scorn, but kind words aren’t automatically apolitical or non-strategic and commemoration can be a way of validating ideology. Scalia’s towering reputation, according to Jeb Bush, creates an onus on Obama to nominate someone with a “proven conservative record,” after all. And as any pacifist can attest, kindness and praise shouldn’t be conflated with an absence of politics.

Can criticizing Scalia create an alternative political vision for the United States? At the very least, Scalia’s critics counter the national vision offered by state officials and their supporters. Mourners should not be compelled to reproduce civic identity in a way that celebrates some lives, like Supreme Court Justices, and marginalizes others. Celebrate or condemn Scalia, but don’t pretend that one side has a monopoly on etiquette or exists outside of politics.

Zootopia, the Only Good Cop is a Judy Hopps

Screen Shot 2016-03-04 at 10.23.05 PM

 
Based on the leaded trailers and, let’s face it, troubling buddy-cop framing, I expected to bitterly groan my way trough Zootopia, Disney’s new CGI bauble which is on its way to box office records for the studio in its opening weekend.  For me, the glaring sting in this movie purported to teach kids about racial bias and the idea that anyone can be whatever you want to be (a novel concept for a Disney film!) is that a picked-on girl’s greatest dream is to be a police officer.  In the lead-up to the film’s release, I’ve brooded over a melange of discomfort and disgust at a theme so poorly timed when more and more attention is being paid to the tensions between minority communities and law enforcement.  I feel like Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark.  “Cops…  Why’d it have to be cops?”  It’s the Achilles’ heel to a film I largely found delightful.  However, in those moments of doubt, I had of course set aside the fact that a) I am a furry pervert.  b) this movie stars a plucky bunny lady.  c) BUNNY.  BUNNY BUNNY BUNNY.

I’ve written before about how using furries as an analog for racial strife can be a very bad idea, specifically dealing with the disaster that is Blacksad: Arctic Nation. (TW: cartoon depictions of racist violence/lynching)  It can be just too crude a cudgel with which to bash your message into the lobes of your intended audience, and animal stand-ins often substitute for racist caricatures in an ostensibly anti-racist work.  The dynamic between the lead characters, and the sociology of a furry metropolis could have fit into many kinds of stories.  Instead we have a message that tensions in a multicultural society are solved by policing.  That by the end of con-man Nick’s (Jason Bateman) arc is that he joins the civic-minded, selfless Judy on the force, as that is the natural end-point of those good personality traits.  I’m sorely disappointed with that particular angle.  I agree largely with furries like twitter friend Eva Problems whose critiques the movie on the grounds that the political element can’t be decontextualized provide some much-needed clarity.

The social organization of the furry universe of Zootopia serves individual character interactions with less clumsiness than the broad “message” of the film. The film actually benefits from a lack of commitment to a coherent racial analogy like the depiction of white fur in Arctic Nation that mimics whiteness as a social construct. The hazy coexistence of predator/prey gives us an environment where contradictory characters can experience marginalization and empowerment in a variety of contexts.  The tension between predator and prey abruptly upends itself three-quarters way through the movie, where the point of view switches somewhat from Judy’s to Nick’s and we are given new perspectives from which the characters can feel discounted, othered and feared.  It’s bewilderingly self-aware and at the same time is so not.  For instance the police department that Judy is assigned to is largely staffed by predator species.  This makes sense in the first act when they bully and discount Judy’s ability, but doesn’t carry over to the 2nd when predators are the targets of fear and suspicion.  The take-away of the film is clearly meant to instill empathy, compassion, anti-racism and multiculturalism in its intended audience of young viewers.  The real concern regarding a critical reading of Zootopia’s themes is whether this movie will inspire more curiosity in young folks about bias, bigotry and corruption or pacify that curiosity instead in a pat, simplified entertainment product that upholds the status quo.

In Zootopia, Judy Hopps is our hero, voiced by Jennifer Goodwin.  Judy is a punk and Judy is a runt.  A child in a litter of two hundred or so kittens of content Rabbit carrot farmers in a rural community, she is driven to be extraordinary, to explore and to serve the greater good.  That her vision of service involves the career of law enforcement… well I’ve already registered my reservations.  Judy is personally ambitious and driven to protect others, except maybe when made to doubt her competence as an authority figure.  Her chief, the hulking Cape Buffalo (Idris Elba), accepts her assignment as a publicity measure but was never interested in employing his city’s “first rabbit officer.”  He wants Judy out of there as soon as the good press blows over, assigning her to parking duty in an attempt to humiliate her off the force.  Stung, Judy sticks it to the chief by being the best meter maid she can be, employing a predatory practice that often disproportionately affects the poor.  She knows how to stick up for herself when a (juuuuuuust  right) sized citizen wants to pick on her (which is all the time) and also misjudges the good nature of bigger people who accept her presence as a matter of political convenience rather than actual tolerance.  She busted her ass to ace exams she was disadvantaged for only to matriculate into a police department made up of brutes and bruisers who, predator and prey, male and female, are evaluated on a scale of physical characteristics that only acknowledge the big and physically imposing.  She battles against the idea that bunnies are too meek for serious work, that gentle-hearted people are too feeble for serious service.  It’s clear she’s every bit as capable at her job as much for her wits, tenacity and compassion as any big bad wolf.

She takes an opportunity to butt her way into a real case when over a dozen citizens, all predators, go missing.  What’s more, they’ve all been struck by a rapid degenerative position that renders them violent and in basically a “feral” state.  After being burned by him, she conscripts the petty grifter Nick Wilde, a sly-but-not-as-sly-as-he-thinks-he-is fox into her scheme to keep her job by him helping out in the missing-person investigation.  Nick takes every opportunity to gleefully undermine her ecumenical dream of moving to the big city and changing the world, so Judy blackmails him into helping her, in part because she needs his streetwise knowledge of her new city, and also to test her insecurities.  She wants to battle the social prejudices that belittle her, but can she overcome deep-seated ones of her own about foxes?  Her moment of clarity was after being violently bullied by a fox as a child who told her, dumb bunnies can’t amount to anything.  Hopps’ overcautious Midwestern parents reinforce this.  So Judy goes for broke and moves to to a miserable little boarding house in the big city, not necessarily to spite them, but to prove them all wrong in any case.

Nick is Judy’s natural foil, a totally self-interested, cynical crook whose dreams got crushed early by his childhood tormentors (all herbivores), replayed in a devastating flashback (good thing I saw it at a nearly empty matinee, as a lone adult crying seated next to a strangers’ kids is not a great look).  He nags her with poisonous barbs because, well naturally he doesn’t like cops, and her cloying earnestness eats away at something inside of him.  They share a back-and-forth that reads like the first act of a horseshit romantic comedy, bitterness and acrimony as a silty overcoat to a significant bond.  The value that comes out in the wash though, is the damage, and the shared desire to heal that damage that brings them together, and breaks them apart, and brings them together again.  The emotional core of this movie, the reason that it works, is these two people who are so fundamentally opposed in every way who grow to depend and care for each other.  Maybe you could read their relationship as a romantic one, but it’s not necessary for appreciating the bond they share.  It’s a buddy cop movie, and Nick and Judy are magnetic buddies.
 

Screen Shot 2016-03-06 at 3.13.54 PM

The Zootopia-inspired site banner for Furaffinity, the internet’s largest furry social media/art gallery site. By Korichi.


 
So again, the race allegory keeps weaving itself through every relationship, interpersonal and social.  Judy is transferred to the heart of the city by calculating bureaucrats seeking to appeal to a %90 herbivorous population who nevertheless entrust their policing to a minority of mostly predator species.  The predators are the natural leaders and protectors, and yet feared and ultimately despised and marginalized for their supposedly “biological” predilections toward violence.  The mayor is the lion and his deputy, the lamb (well, sheep).  Judy in the world of Zootopia occupies at the same time the position of being victim and victimizer. She’s someone counted out by her native community and her chosen community.  But Judy finds herself wielding tremendous social power against a populace that is seen as highly influential and yet looked upon with suspicion.  Criminality is shown as a trait of in predatory species, just as as political corruption is in prey species that secretly manipulate the supposedly homogeneous society of Zootopia. The explicitly stated point is that forming a multicultural society is messy, and yet each individual is responsible for dealing with their own ingrained biases when interacting with people with a (naturally) different perspective.  Judy and Nick are not fast friends.  But they share a common experience in being singled out.  There are large herbivores on the police force, but there’s never been a BUNNY cop.  Carnivores are largely integrated into society, but everyone agrees you can’t trust those nasty FOXES.
 

Screen Shot 2016-03-04 at 9.45.20 PM

Hi Daddy


 
There has been non-stop chatter in the community in the lead-up to this weekend about the extent to which Zootopia is a “Furry” movie.  How many of us walked among the aminators, directors and writers who brought us this fantasy.  Would Zootopia, like its antecedent, Disney’s Robin Hood be a secret key to the hearts of people who pretend to be cartoon animals in order to really feel human?  Young folks love cartoon animals, sure, but will this film mark another Cambrian explosion of lifers like well, me?   Supposedly, the image Byron Howard, Zootia’s director along with Rich Moore, used to pitch the concept of a return to funny animal movies to executive producer John Lasseter was of Disney’s foxy loxy Robin Hood reclining in a wicker basket.  The not-insignificant marketing campaign behind the movie might have included a branch directly reaching out to furries.  I’ve noticed a rush to claim ownership over a well-anticipated property.  I share in a relief at its positive response that wouldn’t have necessarily happened maybe just five years ago.  Nowadays who even are you if you don’t have a fursona?

I’m somewhat of a camp that understands Furry culture as inextricable from sexuality.  So I’m hesitant to speculate on the upcoming generation of furries who have a right to figure their own shit out in their own time.  Furries have already proliferated a king-of-the-jungle’s ransom of Zootopia inspired fan porn (sometimes obnoxiously using official hashtags.  I do wish people would cut that gunk out.)  If you know where to look, it’s unavoidable that Zootopia is a fueled in part by the horny of furry animators and storytellers from roughly my generation.  There’s  the scene where Judy, though small in stature compared to many creatures, got to be a relative giantess, stomping around the neighborhood populated by  tiny mice and shrews.  While not an exclusive attribute, the Macro/Micro fetish focusing on extreme size difference is a conspicuous facet of furry culture.  It’s a spectacularly composed chase scene for those not in the know, and a pretty big “OOOOOOH” moment for the kink-literate.  During the climax, Nick (with negotiated consent) “went feral” and play acted a scene that culminating in him sensually biting Judy’s neck.  This doesn’t necessarily subvert my non-rom-com interpretation of the leads’ relationship, I’m of the school of friends boning down sans-strings being a thing that can happen.  But in any case, this is a crucial, fraught, terrifying intimate moment.  And Nick’s definitely a type of guy who’s down to get pegged.  Oh.  By the way.  Did you notice, watching the end credits…………… THOSE TIIIIIIIIIIIGERS?  MY GOD.  Zootopia highlights a lead who is not a princess, and not really romantically driven. But it’s also the horniest movie Disney has ever made.  I’m talking almost Don Bluth-level barely sublimated horny.
 

Screen Shot 2016-03-06 at 2.53.19 PM

EXCUSE ME???!


 
Zootopia is a PRETTY movie, no… a goregeous movie, with jaw-dropping attention to detail in background animation and dedicated research based on the real animals the cartoonized characters are based on.  Every figure, major and minor, is cartooned with an exaggerated take on their native animal’s shape, weight and movement.  Their responses to high-stress situations, like ducking an obstacle on the roof of an out-of-control subway car, is informed by the meticulously observed behavior of the actual animals being represented.  The environments they move through, the city center or the tundra or, my lord, the jungle zone, are spectacles, lovingly rendered in frequent wide establishing shots.  The fur (THE FURR) of each chraracter is so tactile, from the fluffy cheeks of a sedentary cheetah to the greasy, nappy locks of a naturist gnu (voiced by Tommy Chong!).  To the art department, only love and kisses and more money for you.

Zootopia’s message is mired in role reversals, or dualistic prejudices cast into flux.  The twist ending, the reveal of the mastermind behind the purposeful stoking of tensions between species is hysterical in one sense and deflating in another.  There is a constant, conscious focus on hard realities in this breezy fuzzy fable for kids.  People sometimes act on unexamined biases or are motivated to do terrible things by an unaddressed but real sense of grievance.  Zootopia glosses over issues of police departments’ responsibilities to the communities they serve, but also highlights its main characters empathy and selflessness as her personal and professional strength.  It mind-blowingly (though abstractly) references the panic about crack cocaine in urban communities in the 80s and 90s and how it was cynically used as a wedge to stoke racist paranoia.  And yet the film presents a fantasy where the government parties who stoke the fires of fear and division are punished for their corruption and the victims are given treatment.  The city focuses on a theraputic, non-carceral solution to the chemical that turned the unlucky predators  to violence, and they return to their families.
 

Screen Shot 2016-03-04 at 10.51.28 PM

This court has concluded that there is no statute on record that explicitly forbids parties Wilde and Hopps from kissing.


 
Zootopia is one hell of a slimy gumbo of contradictory messages.  But I’m from Alabama, and I like gumbo.  The inherent pun in the title, in the United States release at least, is that the messy, resentful furry metropolis that Judy vows to serve and protect is not anything like a Utopia.  It’s multi-culture sheen is driven by barely restrained resentment and contempt.  People like Judy Hopps can in good conscience think they’re doing the right thing while letting their biases stoke sub-dermal bigotry between predator and prey.  And in the pursuit of her own dreams, she realizes that she’s the convenient tool of predatory bureaucrats covering their own asses until the next election cycle.  In this miasma of cynicism, the corniest of Disney cliches kind of… blossom.  When Judy believes in herself, and cares about others, and trusts someone who isn’t anxious to give her a reason to, she saves the day.  Fatally flawed as it is, Zootopia is one paw forward into our furry future.

ALSO LOOK AT THE BUNNY.

Utilitarian Review 3/5/16

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Kinukitty on Neil Gaiman and the death of dream.

A storify about telling people they’re privileged.

Chris Gavaler presents a superhero performance.

I reviewed the film Bethelehem about the Israeli spies and how they suck.

I reviewed the doc Next Year In Jerusalem about elderly American touring Israel.

Robert Stanley Martin with on sale dates of comics from the end of ’52.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

At Playboy I interviewed David Barash about how humans are naturally polygamous and harem forming.

At the Kernel I wrote about my failed Patreon campaign.

For my first piece at The Week I wrote that this isn’t the year of the political outsider.

At the Establishment I wrote about the fascist fantasies of “London Has Fallen” and Trump.

At Splice Today I wrote

—about some great future past electronica: Chema64, Gqom, and Kraftwerk reprised.

—that Sanders should quit when it’s clear he’s going to lose.

A couple of Shmoop guides I worked on were posted.

—One on Karel Capek’s R.U.R.

—One on 2001: A Space Odyssey.
 
Other Links

Jeff Spross on how we should give welfare to everyone.

C.T. May on shitty prose on the Internet.

Suzy Khimm on the movement after Sanders.
 

Screen Shot 2016-03-04 at 8.51.21 PM

Israel for Tourists

This first ran at the Dissolve.
_______

Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 7.33.48 AM

In a scene toward the end of the documentary Next Year Jerusalem, a nursing-home attendant tells Helen, one of the residents, how much she admires her, and hopes she’ll be just like her when she’s her age. Helen is clearly flattered and touched; it’s a sweet moment. But in the context of the film, it isn’t explained or justified. Viewers are told that Helen is wonderful, but the film never conveys why that is, or what about her, precisely, her caregiver is responding to.

That’s emblematic of the documentary as a whole. Next Year Jerusalem is about eight nursing-home residents who travel with the home’s staff to Israel. The obvious touchstone is Barbara Myerhoff’s famous book and documentary Number Our Days, which is also set in a Jewish home, and which movingly examines the persistence of ritual, life, and meaning at the end of the line. But director David Gaynes lacks Myerhoff’s anthropological perspective, intellectual rigor, and imagination. There’s little depth to his presentation. The residents and staff don’t come across as individual characters, so much as a series of endearing tics. One 90-plus man makes jokes about how he’s no longer a ladies’ man. (He quips that his “thing” doesn’t work anymore.) Helen and her attendant are shown declaring their affection for each other. One severely handicapped woman named Selma jokes about how much food she gets on her coat. The nursing-home president gets weepy as he stands with his travelers, looking down on Jerusalem. Much of this is amusing, even tear-jerking; the president’s emotion is obviously real, and the care he feels for his residents and his community is affecting. But that affect is presented primarily as spectacle, rather than as a narrative that the viewer is invited to understand or participate in.

That’s true not just for the residents, but for Israel as well. The subjects went to Israel as tourists, so it’s no surprise that the film presents a tourist’s-eye-view of the country: There’s the river Jordan; there’s the Western Wall, with the Hasidim acting self-consciously as tour guides; there’s Masada. It’s the Holy Land as amusement park, and while it’s impossible to begrudge the residents their trip of a lifetime, it’s hard not to feel like the filmmakers do just about everyone a disservice by ignoring the painful realities undergirding the sightseeing. A film about Israel that completely ignores the Palestinians’ existence in the interest of focusing on Americans’ self-actualization is a film that really needs to reconsider its priorities.

Perhaps Gaynes would have been better served by eschewing the trip to Israel, and concentrating instead on getting to know the residents over a longer period of time. As it is, Next Year Jerusalem offers little insight into its putative protagonists, and even less into Israel. The residents are impressive in their willingness to get outside of their comfort zone. The film, unfortunately, demonstrates little of that courage.